Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums

"As Mankind becomes more liberal, they will be more apt to allow that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are equally entitled to the protections of civil government. I hope ever to see America among the foremost nations of justice and liberality."

Libs back then probably wanted to keep the church out of government and get rid of slavery, but it seems he was aware of a progression toward a more liberal society and people being "equally entitled to the protections of civil government"

Libs back then probably wanted to keep the church out of government and get rid of slavery, but it seems he was aware of a progression toward a more liberal society and people being "equally entitled to the protections of civil government"

this is the man, afterall, who is called the "father of our country"

LOL I like how you left out the "worthy members of the community" problem is alot of ppl arent worthy members of society...and please tell me who you think in this day in age are denied protections from govt?

LOL I like how you left out the "worthy members of the community" problem is alot of ppl arent worthy members of society...and please tell me who you think in this day in age are denied protections from govt?

left it out?

it's in my first post

here, I'll post the whole thing again just for you:

"As Mankind becomes more liberal, they will be more apt to allow that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are equally entitled to the protections of civil government. I hope ever to see America among the foremost nations of justice and liberality."

"As Mankind becomes more liberal, they will be more apt to allow that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are equally entitled to the protections of civil government. I hope ever to see America among the foremost nations of justice and liberality."

LOL you left it out in your 2nd post numb nut, you dont think thats an important part of his quote?

please tell me who you think in this day in age are denied protections from govt?

This includes the importance of human rationality, individual property rights, natural rights, the protection of civil liberties, individual freedom from restraint, equality under the law, constitutional limitation of government, free markets, and a gold standard to place fiscal constraints on government[4] as exemplified in the writings of John Locke, Adam Smith, David Hume, David Ricardo, Voltaire, Montesquieu and others. As such, it is the fusion of economic liberalism with political liberalism of the late 18th and 19th centuries.[2]

The "normative core" of classical liberalism is the idea that laissez-faire economics will bring about a spontaneous order or invisible hand that benefits the society,[5] though it does not necessarily oppose the state's provision of some basic public goods with what constitutes public goods being seen as very limited.[6] The qualification classical was applied retroactively to distinguish it from more recent, 20th-century conceptions of liberalism and its related movements, such as social liberalism.[7] Classical liberals are suspicious of all but the most minimal government[8] and object to the welfare state[9]

This includes the importance of human rationality, individual property rights, natural rights, the protection of civil liberties, individual freedom from restraint, equality under the law, constitutional limitation of government, free markets, and a gold standard to place fiscal constraints on government[4] as exemplified in the writings of John Locke, Adam Smith, David Hume, David Ricardo, Voltaire, Montesquieu and others. As such, it is the fusion of economic liberalism with political liberalism of the late 18th and 19th centuries.[2]

The "normative core" of classical liberalism is the idea that laissez-faire economics will bring about a spontaneous order or invisible hand that benefits the society,[5] though it does not necessarily oppose the state's provision of some basic public goods with what constitutes public goods being seen as very limited.[6] The qualification classical was applied retroactively to distinguish it from more recent, 20th-century conceptions of liberalism and its related movements, such as social liberalism.[7] Classical liberals are suspicious of all but the most minimal government[8] and object to the welfare state[9]

Basically the opposite of everything the Democrat party embodies. Not surprising that Straw Man is making a fool of himself again.

Props for trying to act like today's Democrat (or Republican for that matter) party is what Washington had in mind when he said that.

This includes the importance of human rationality, individual property rights, natural rights, the protection of civil liberties, individual freedom from restraint, equality under the law, constitutional limitation of government, free markets, and a gold standard to place fiscal constraints on government[4] as exemplified in the writings of John Locke, Adam Smith, David Hume, David Ricardo, Voltaire, Montesquieu and others. As such, it is the fusion of economic liberalism with political liberalism of the late 18th and 19th centuries.[2]

The "normative core" of classical liberalism is the idea that laissez-faire economics will bring about a spontaneous order or invisible hand that benefits the society,[5] though it does not necessarily oppose the state's provision of some basic public goods with what constitutes public goods being seen as very limited.[6] The qualification classical was applied retroactively to distinguish it from more recent, 20th-century conceptions of liberalism and its related movements, such as social liberalism.[7] Classical liberals are suspicious of all but the most minimal government[8] and object to the welfare state[9]

This includes the importance of human rationality, individual property rights, natural rights, the protection of civil liberties, individual freedom from restraint, equality under the law, constitutional limitation of government, free markets, and a gold standard to place fiscal constraints on government[4] as exemplified in the writings of John Locke, Adam Smith, David Hume, David Ricardo, Voltaire, Montesquieu and others. As such, it is the fusion of economic liberalism with political liberalism of the late 18th and 19th centuries.[2]

The "normative core" of classical liberalism is the idea that laissez-faire economics will bring about a spontaneous order or invisible hand that benefits the society,[5] though it does not necessarily oppose the state's provision of some basic public goods with what constitutes public goods being seen as very limited.[6] The qualification classical was applied retroactively to distinguish it from more recent, 20th-century conceptions of liberalism and its related movements, such as social liberalism.[7] Classical liberals are suspicious of all but the most minimal government[8] and object to the welfare state[9]

Social Liberalism is more along the lines of what we call Liberalism today

Here is a comment from that link on Social Liberalism

"social liberalism (also called modern liberalism or welfare liberalism) holds that individuals have a right to be provided with certain benefits or services by others.[26] Unlike social liberals, classical liberals are "hostile to the welfare state."[9] They do not have an interest in material equality but only in "equality before the law."[27] Classical liberalism is critical of social liberalism and takes offense at group rights being pursued at the expense of individual rights.[28]"

And more from the Social Liberalism wiki page:

Social liberalism is a political position that supports heavier regulation of the economy and more welfare than other types of liberalism, particularly classical liberalism. Moreover, social liberals consider the accumulation of wealth and power by a small group as a threat to liberty.[1][2]

Social liberalism replaced classical liberalism as the dominant ideology in much of the world, from the late nineteenth century onwards, although there was a resurgence of classical liberal ideology in the late 20th century.[3] Social liberal ideas and parties tend to be considered centrist[4][5] or centre-left[6][7][8].

Social liberalism is also called new liberalism[nb 1][9] (as it was originally termed), contemporary liberalism,[10] welfare liberalism,[11] high liberalism,[12] radical liberalism,[13] modern liberalism,[14] revisionist liberalism,[15] left-liberalism,[16] or simply liberalism.

Social Liberalism is more along the lines of what we call Liberalism today

Here is a comment from that link on Social Liberalism

"social liberalism (also called modern liberalism or welfare liberalism) holds that individuals have a right to be provided with certain benefits or services by others.[26] Unlike social liberals, classical liberals are "hostile to the welfare state."[9] They do not have an interest in material equality but only in "equality before the law."[27] Classical liberalism is critical of social liberalism and takes offense at group rights being pursued at the expense of individual rights.[28]"

And more from the Social Liberalism wiki page:

Social liberalism is a political position that supports heavier regulation of the economy and more welfare than other types of liberalism, particularly classical liberalism. Moreover, social liberals consider the accumulation of wealth and power by a small group as a threat to liberty.[1][2]

Social liberalism replaced classical liberalism as the dominant ideology in much of the world, from the late nineteenth century onwards, although there was a resurgence of classical liberal ideology in the late 20th century.[3] Social liberal ideas and parties tend to be considered centrist[4][5] or centre-left[6][7][8].

Social liberalism is also called new liberalism[nb 1][9] (as it was originally termed), contemporary liberalism,[10] welfare liberalism,[11] high liberalism,[12] radical liberalism,[13] modern liberalism,[14] revisionist liberalism,[15] left-liberalism,[16] or simply liberalism.

when did I bring up "social liberalism" and how about providing us some links to what Washingtong thought about liberalism meant rather than Wiki links (written by ?) about "classic liberalism" and then attempting to conflate that with whatever it was Washington was talking about.

when did I bring up "social liberalism" and how about providing us some links to what Washingtong thought about liberalism meant rather than Wiki links (written by ?) about "classic liberalism" and then attempting to conflate that with whatever it was Washington was talking about.

LOL melt much?

how about you seeing as you were the one who posted the quote ;)

you ASSumed he was aware of a progression to a more liberal society but you have no proof? where are your links as to what washington was talking to? ::)

you ASSumed he was aware of a progression to a more liberal society but you have no proof? where are your links as to what washington was talking to? ::)

"melt"

LOL - that's hilarious coming from you,the person who feels compelled to write in CAPS and use 25 exclamation points

why don't you use that big brain of your and scroll back to the top of this thread and look at what I said in response to Ozmo's question about the definition of liberal.

did I make any definititive statement about what it was or was not?

was my speculation in any way inconsistemt with some of the things listed as classical liberalism such as human rationality, natural rights, the protection of civil liberties, individual freedom from restraint, equality under the law, etc...

Is it possible for you to have a conversaion without immediately flying off the handle with your preconceived prejudices

I don't really have a definition of a liberal but I think you can define certain beliefs as being supported by liberals or conservative (as a general rule but not an exclusive rule).

for example, I would say most liberals are against torture (this doesn not mean that all conservatives are for torture or that you can't be conservative and also be against torture)

would you agree with that one statement

LOL that isnt a belief...the belief would be that in general conservatives are for doing anything and everything that might need to be done to protect the US and its ppl...liberals in general are not...certain interrogation techniques would be the example of that...

and I dont know I havent polled or seen a poll but I would be in favor of doing anything and everything possible to protect the US and its ppl...how about you?

Since there is no Liberal Party there is no codified definition of Liberal and the common assumption is the fuzzy pejorative version of the far right.

What did Washington believe liberalism as? And how does that compare to today's definition or definitions? (as the title of the thread indirectly provides one as "filthy") If there are so many definitions and you cannot provide one, then Washington's statement is moot for the purposes of the point you are making.

Because if you can't compare or link liberalism as its defined today with how liberalism was defined by Washington then.........

This includes the importance of human rationality, individual property rights, natural rights, the protection of civil liberties, individual freedom from restraint, equality under the law, constitutional limitation of government, free markets, and a gold standard to place fiscal constraints on government[4] as exemplified in the writings of John Locke, Adam Smith, David Hume, David Ricardo, Voltaire, Montesquieu and others. As such, it is the fusion of economic liberalism with political liberalism of the late 18th and 19th centuries.[2]

The "normative core" of classical liberalism is the idea that laissez-faire economics will bring about a spontaneous order or invisible hand that benefits the society,[5] though it does not necessarily oppose the state's provision of some basic public goods with what constitutes public goods being seen as very limited.[6] The qualification classical was applied retroactively to distinguish it from more recent, 20th-century conceptions of liberalism and its related movements, such as social liberalism.[7] Classical liberals are suspicious of all but the most minimal government[8] and object to the welfare state[9]

What did Washington believe liberalism as? And how does that compare to today's definition or definitions? (as the title of the thread indirectly provides one as "filthy") If there are so many definitions and you cannot provide one, then Washington's statement is moot for the purposes of the point you are making.

Because if you can't compare or link liberalism as its defined today with how liberalism was defined by Washington then.........

Game, set, match.

Straw Man made quite the fool of himself in this thread. I think Washington would be disgusted to see what both parties have become.

What did Washington believe liberalism as? And how does that compare to today's definition or definitions? (as the title of the thread indirectly provides one as "filthy") If there are so many definitions and you cannot provide one, then Washington's statement is moot for the purposes of the point you are making.

Because if you can't compare or link liberalism as its defined today with how liberalism was defined by Washington then.........

I used filthy because "lib" today is only used as a negative term and it's completely defined by the right.

everything is a negative

According to the right Libs are weak on defense, want big goverment, want the government to control your lifelife etc...

none of that is actualy true or provable but that's the type of thing that's associated with Liberal

then again Conservatives tell us they are fiscally conservative, for smaller government and want to stay out of your personal life.

None of that is true either and in fact most of it is the complete opposite of the truth

I can't really give you a good definition of what a liberal or conservative are today

I do think Washington was very liberal in his time and would probably still be considered liberal today by our negative definition of the word. (If anyone actually bothers to read this far before responding I will give examples)

I used filthy because "lib" today is only used as a negative term and it's completely defined by the right.

everything is a negative

According to the right Libs are weak on defense, want big goverment, want the government to control your lifelife etc...

none of that is actualy true or provable but that's the type of thing that's associated with Liberal

then again Conservatives tell us they are fiscally conservative, for smaller government and want to stay out of your personal life.

None of that is true either and in fact most of it is the complete opposite of the truth

I can't really give you a good definition of what a liberal or conservative are today

I do think Washington was very liberal in his time and would probably still be considered liberal today by our negative definition of the word. (If anyone actually bothers to read this far before responding I will give examples)

and what makes you think washington would be liberal by todays standards?

Can anyone here tell me one GOOD thing you associate with the word LIB or even LIBERAL?

what does that have to do with your goof in this thread?

what was your point of posting that quote straw?

regulation is good to a certain point and protection of civil liberties is as well(but then again conservatives agree with those as well to a certain point) problem is that some liberals takes that to an extreme and infringe on others rights in order to get their ways...how about conservatives for you straw, name any good things?

regulation is good to a certain point and protection of civil liberties is as well(but then again conservatives agree with those as well to a certain point) problem is that some liberals takes that to an extreme and infringe on others rights in order to get their ways...how about conservatives for you straw, name any good things?

can't think of even one "good" thing can you

just to review

I think Washington in many ways was a liberal in his time and would be called a liberal today

regulation is good to a certain point and protection of civil liberties is as well(but then again conservatives agree with those as well to a certain point) problem is that some liberals takes that to an extreme and infringe on others rights in order to get their ways...how about conservatives for you straw, name any good things?

I swear a degenerative brain disorder that is rapidly progressing ::)now why do you believe he would be considered a liberal today straw?

sorry I missed that

so you're saying you associate "regulation" and "protection of civil liberties" as a something liberal?

I believe by todays standards Washington would be considered weak on national defense. He was against getting involved in foreign wars and totally against torture of prisoners. If he held those views today he would be a called a "lib"

so you're saying you associate "regulation" and "protection of civil liberties" as a something liberal?

I believe by todays standards Washington would be considered weak on national defense. He was against getting involved in foreign wars and totally against torture of prisoners. If he held those views today he would be a called a "lib"

LOL youre really not taking into account much are you? it was alot easier to ignore other countries back then, remember isolationism? this was real big up till WW2...different times, youre taking his opinion in a situation that was totally different and trying to apply to todays situation...

again your focusing on the way an idea presents itself straw not the reasoning behind it, what was his reasoning for being against "torture" what was considered "torture" in his day?....LOL he may not have considered water boarding torture.... ;) LMAO

LOL youre really not taking into account much are you? it was alot easier to ignore other countries back then, remember isolationism? this was real big up till WW2...different times, youre taking his opinion in a situation that was totally different and trying to apply to todays situation...

again your focusing on the way an idea presents itself straw not the reasoning behind it, what was his reasoning for being against "torture" what was considered "torture" in his day?....LOL he may not have considered water boarding torture.... ;) LMAO

Torture in Washingtons time was just like it is today and they were fighting a real war on our land for the life and death of the country. If anything the stakes were much higher then than they are now:

“Should any American soldier be so base and infamous as to injure any [prisoner]. . . I do most earnestly enjoin you to bring him to such severe and exemplary punishment as the enormity of the crime may require. Should it extend to death itself, it will not be disproportional to its guilt at such a time and in such a cause… for by such conduct they bring shame, disgrace and ruin to themselves and their country.” - George Washington, charge to the Northern Expeditionary Force, Sept. 14, 1775

Torture in Washingtons time was just like it is today and they were fighting a real war on our land for the life and death of the country. If anything the stakes were much higher then than they are now:

“Should any American soldier be so base and infamous as to injure any [prisoner]. . . I do most earnestly enjoin you to bring him to such severe and exemplary punishment as the enormity of the crime may require. Should it extend to death itself, it will not be disproportional to its guilt at such a time and in such a cause… for by such conduct they bring shame, disgrace and ruin to themselves and their country.” - George Washington, charge to the Northern Expeditionary Force, Sept. 14, 1775

please give links to torture being the same in washingtons day as it is today...waterboarding specifically...

INJURE INJURE INJURE a prisoner....waterboarding is injuring a person?

Straw - if GW was as liberal as you claim, please answer the following:

1. Why didn't he advocate gay members be enlisted into the Continental Army?

2. Why did he support a war over a tax that by todays' standards in nothing compared to what the modern "liberals" push for?

3. Why did GW seek to avoid engaging in foreign entanglements when it is the modern day liberals who want us to sign international treaties binding our nation to all sorts of nonsense? and this is not Dem v GOP, by ideology.

I used filthy because "lib" today is only used as a negative term and it's completely defined by the right.

everything is a negative

According to the right Libs are weak on defense, want big goverment, want the government to control your lifelife etc...

none of that is actualy true or provable but that's the type of thing that's associated with Liberal

then again Conservatives tell us they are fiscally conservative, for smaller government and want to stay out of your personal life.

None of that is true either and in fact most of it is the complete opposite of the truth

I can't really give you a good definition of what a liberal or conservative are today

I do think Washington was very liberal in his time and would probably still be considered liberal today by our negative definition of the word. (If anyone actually bothers to read this far before responding I will give examples)

Some of that negative view is brought on my extreme liberals and conservative spin agreed. If you think about it libs kind of give them selves a bad name. But if you look at Washington's statement it does sound more like modern day conservatives.

Some of that negative view is brought on my extreme liberals and conservative spin agreed. If you think about it libs kind of give them selves a bad name. But if you look at Washington's statement it does sound more like modern day conservatives.

I dont' see it that way.

Like I stated previously, "LIB" is a pejorative term in our country and it's definition is soley created by the right

If Liberal in the late 1700's = Conservative today then how do you explain current day conservatives who have exploded the size of goverment, run up the national debt, tried to take away civil liberties (aka Patriot Act), tried to insert their own values into everyone's private life, resisted and fought equality under the law (opposed civil rights, gay rights,etc..), pursued wars of choice, etc.....

Like I stated previously, "LIB" is a pejorative term in our country and it's definition is soley created by the right

If Liberal in the late 1700's = Conservative today then how do you explain current day conservatives who have exploded the size of goverment, run up the national debt, tried to take away civil liberties (aka Patriot Act), tried to insert their own values into everyone's private life, resisted and fought equality under the law (opposed civil rights, gay rights,etc..), pursued wars of choice, etc.....

Today's modern Conservative is nothing like Washington's Liberal

LOL brain child you could point to both parties that do that...its what the conservatives believe and what liberals believe that is the point...we are talking conservative or liberal principles not actions of so called libs or cons...

you really havent given any reason why washington would be considered a liberal today...both liberals and conservatives were isolationinst prior to WW2 for the most part...the only person who I know that believes along those lines today is ron paul A CONSERVATIVE...an actual conservative

LOL brain child you could point to both parties that do that...its what the conservatives believe and what liberals believe that is the point...we are talking conservative or liberal principles not actions of so called libs or cons...

you really havent given any reason why washington would be considered a liberal today...both liberals and conservatives were isolationinst prior to WW2 for the most part...the only person who I know that believes along those lines today is ron paul A CONSERVATIVE...an actual conservative

I have to say he sounds more like a stinking filthly lib more than a corporatist, jesus freak, neo-con

I think I've said before that both parties suck and it's nice to see that Washington had a lot to say about political parties and even in the larger context of the idea of countries and the nature of conflict

I have to say he sounds more like a stinking filthly lib more than a corporatist, jesus freak, neo-con

I think I've said before that both parties suck and it's nice to see that Washington had a lot to say about political parties and even in the larger context of the idea of countries and the nature of conflict

Sounds more like our President Straw. Exapanding wars and the Patriot Act, corporate giveaways up the yin yang in ObamaCare 7 Cap & Trade and the bailouts, spent 20 years in a race baiting church, etc.

Sounds more like our President Straw. Exapanding wars and the Patriot Act, corporate giveaways up the yin yang in ObamaCare 7 Cap & Trade and the bailouts, spent 20 years in a race baiting church, etc.

sounds like Bush as well and to a certain extent also Reagan,

The idea that Repubs are fiscally conservative and want smaller governent and want to stay out of our private lives is a complete joke.

they sell that story to the voting schmuck (and it helps to get them scared in order to buy it) while doing the exact opposite

Like I stated previously, "LIB" is a pejorative term in our country and it's definition is soley created by the right

If Liberal in the late 1700's = Conservative today then how do you explain current day conservatives who have exploded the size of goverment, run up the national debt, tried to take away civil liberties (aka Patriot Act), tried to insert their own values into everyone's private life, resisted and fought equality under the law (opposed civil rights, gay rights,etc..), pursued wars of choice, etc.....

Today's modern Conservative is nothing like Washington's Liberal

I see some of what you are saying, however in saying what you have said it takes away from the point you were trying to make in the first place, that Washington was liberal as we see liberals today.

I see some of what you are saying, however in saying what you have said it takes away from the point you were trying to make in the first place, that Washington was liberal as we see liberals today.

most of the criticism of me on this thread is the somehow when Washington used the word liberal he was really referring to a consertvative ideal.

I don't agree with that premise.

The more I read of Washingtons writings the more he seems like an enlightined, intellectual, liberal than what we today call conservative.

He was completely against political parties because he felt they bred divisiveness (see any of that on this board?)

The point of my title was that, today, "liberal" is always a negative. That's how it's been framed for us by the right and that's why my title was filtly stinking lib.

The quote by Washingtong talks about sociate becoming more liberal over time and talks about more people be "equally entitled" to the protection of government. That idea sounds more like a liberal democratic idea in today's meaning of the word than a republican/conservative idea (IMO).

in the modern time - think about civil rights, workers rights (to s afe workplace, to organize, etc..) womans rights, gay rights, human rights in generalenvironmentalism (the idea that "the commons" belong to the people), etc... Repubs/Conservatives are generally not the champions of these ideas (we can give some credit to Nixon for the enviroment)

Why are George Washington quotes so remarkable? Once in a rare while a great man is born - a man who changes the world for the better and leaves his mark for posterity. George Washington was one of these men and his words are words to live by. As we remember his birthday this month, let these leadership quotes remind us of what's really important.

1. "Arbitrary power is most easily established on the ruins of liberty abused to licentiousness."

2. "Be courteous to all, but intimate with few, and let those few be well tried before you give them your confidence."

3. "Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth."

4. "Discipline is the soul of an army. It makes small numbers formidable; procures success to the weak, and esteem to all."

5. "Friendship is a plant of slow growth and must undergo and withstand the shocks of adversity before it is entitled to the appellation."

6. "If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter."

7. "Associate yourself with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation for 'tis better to be alone than in bad company."

8. "Labor to keep alive in your breast that little spark of celestial fire called conscience."

9. "It is impossible to rightly govern a nation without God and the Bible."

10. "The foolish and wicked practice of profane cursing and swearing is a vice so mean and low that every person of sense and character detests and despises it."

11. "Laws made by common consent must not be trampled on by individuals."

12. "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."

[17] "Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and the keystone under independence. The rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable. The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that is good."

Why are George Washington quotes so remarkable? Once in a rare while a great man is born - a man who changes the world for the better and leaves his mark for posterity. George Washington was one of these men and his words are words to live by. As we remember his birthday this month, let these leadership quotes remind us of what's really important.

1. "Arbitrary power is most easily established on the ruins of liberty abused to licentiousness."

2. "Be courteous to all, but intimate with few, and let those few be well tried before you give them your confidence."

3. "Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth."

4. "Discipline is the soul of an army. It makes small numbers formidable; procures success to the weak, and esteem to all."

5. "Friendship is a plant of slow growth and must undergo and withstand the shocks of adversity before it is entitled to the appellation."

6. "If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter."

7. "Associate yourself with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation for 'tis better to be alone than in bad company."

8. "Labor to keep alive in your breast that little spark of celestial fire called conscience."

9. "It is impossible to rightly govern a nation without God and the Bible."

10. "The foolish and wicked practice of profane cursing and swearing is a vice so mean and low that every person of sense and character detests and despises it."

11. "Laws made by common consent must not be trampled on by individuals."

12. "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."

most of the criticism of me on this thread is the somehow when Washington used the word liberal he was really referring to a consertvative ideal.

I don't agree with that premise.

The more I read of Washingtons writings the more he seems like an enlightined, intellectual, liberal than what we today call conservative.

He was completely against political parties because he felt they bred divisiveness (see any of that on this board?)

The point of my title was that, today, "liberal" is always a negative. That's how it's been framed for us by the right and that's why my title was filtly stinking lib.

The quote by Washingtong talks about sociate becoming more liberal over time and talks about more people be "equally entitled" to the protection of government. That idea sounds more like a liberal democratic idea in today's meaning of the word than a republican/conservative idea (IMO).

in the modern time - think about civil rights, workers rights (to s afe workplace, to organize, etc..) womans rights, gay rights, human rights in generalenvironmentalism (the idea that "the commons" belong to the people), etc... Repubs/Conservatives are generally not the champions of these ideas (we can give some credit to Nixon for the enviroment)

Would Washington be considered a liberal by today's standards? Would the democratic party argue that?

Would Washington be considered a liberal by today's standards? Would the democratic party argue that?

I don't know what the democratic party would argue but Washington doesn't sound much like a modern day conservative to me (from what I've read) but then todays Republicans can hardly be called conservatives either given that responsiblity for exploding the size of governement and the national debt, destroying civil liberties, wars of choice, intrusion into person life, trying to inject religion into secular goverment, denying people equal rights, etc...

I don't know what the democratic party would argue but Washington doesn't sound much like a modern day conservative to me (from what I've read) but then todays Republicans can hardly be called conservatives either given that responsiblity for exploding the size of governement and the national debt, destroying civil liberties, wars of choice, intrusion into person life, trying to inject religion into secular goverment, denying people equal rights, etc...

hasn't the arguement people have been trying to make on this thread is that a Lib in Washingtons time was what we would call a conservative so it makes sense to compare Washington to todays "conservative"

hasn't the arguement people have been trying to make on this thread is that a Lib in Washingtons time was what we would call a conservative so it makes sense to compare Washington to todays "conservative"

No, not really, you haven't answered my question (s).

I'm not talking about other people's argument, I'm talking about our discussion.

Would Washington be considered a liberal by today's standards? Would the democratic party argue that?

I don't know what the democratic party would arguebut Washington doesn't sound much like a modern day conservative to me (from what I've read) but then todays Republicans can hardly be called conservatives either given that responsiblity for exploding the size of governement and the national debt, destroying civil liberties, wars of choice, intrusion into person life, trying to inject religion into secular goverment, denying people equal rights, etc...

Straw give it up already. This is like watching a baby seal get waterboarded with motor oil. Your "ironic" thread backfired in typical cringe inducing fashion. You can't possibly explain or rationalize why you posted a GW quote that basically hails today's Tea Party movement as the kind liberalism he hopes will one day be prevalent in the United States.

I don't know what the democratic party would argue but Washington doesn't sound much like a modern day conservative to me (from what I've read) but then todays Republicans can hardly be called conservatives either given that responsiblity for exploding the size of governement and the national debt, destroying civil liberties, wars of choice, intrusion into person life, trying to inject religion into secular goverment, denying people equal rights, etc...

That's funny Straw:

1. Democrats have out spent anything within imagination from 2006 to the preset date and are adding debt like its not even funny.

2. Growing govt? Both parties are guilty, however, the Dems most recent expansions dwarf anything the GOP has done.

3. Destroying civil liberties? Hmmm, isint it Obama who expanded and continues to expand the Patriot Act with the approval of his own party?

Straw give it up already. This is like watching a baby seal get waterboarded with motor oil. Your "ironic" thread backfired in typical cringe inducing fashion. You can't possibly explain or rationalize why you posted a GW quote that basically hails today's Tea Party movement as the kind liberalism he hopes will one day be prevalent in the United States.

6. Denying Equal rights? Like what? Gay Marriage? I guess you forgot that it was Clinton who signed DOMA Act.

7. Inject religion into secular society? Both parties do it.

And lets see Straw - what about the quotes I posted above?

your primary point seems to be that both parities are very similar and I've made the point many times myself

On the other hand, one party claims to be conservative yet their actions are completely the opposite of what conservative claim to believe

If you look at the quote and think when it was made you will no dobut realize that the country has become much more liberal, in the context of what Washintong was talking about.....more and more peole being "equally entitled to the protections of civil government"

Thanks, but you only answered the second question.Would Washington be considered a liberal by today's standards?

I think the word liberal has generally the same meaning today (not the right wing framed version) as it did in Washingtons time. We know he was totally against political parties so he obviously wouldn't be Dem or Repub (or Whig or Bull Moose, or any other party created after his time).

We also know that he help create the most liberal government and country on the planet at that time. He helped create a democracy run by the people, based on individual liberty and freedom from church and monarchies.

here is a definition of the word from the Oxford English Dictionary:http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/view/entry/m_en_us1263252?rskey=KZBrKH&result=1#m_en_us1263252

adjective1 open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values:they have more liberal views toward marriage and divorce than some people favorable to or respectful of individual rights and freedoms:liberal citizenship laws (in a political context) favoring maximum individual liberty in political and social reform:a liberal democratic state (Liberal)of or characteristic of Liberals or a Liberal Party(Liberal)(in the UK) of or relating to the Liberal Democrat Party:the Liberal leader Theologyregarding many traditional beliefs as dispensable, invalidated by modern thought, or liable to change2 [attributive] (of education) concerned mainly with broadening a person's general knowledge and experience, rather than with technical or professional training3 (especially of an interpretation of a law) broadly construed or understood; not strictly literal or exact:they could have given the 1968 Act a more liberal interpretation 4 given , used , or occurring in generous amounts:liberal amounts of wine had been consumed (of a person) giving generously:Sam was too liberal with the wine

Origin:Middle English: via Old French from Latin liberalis, from liber 'free (man)'. The original sense was 'suitable for a free man', hence 'suitable for a gentleman' (one not tied to a trade), surviving in liberal arts. Another early sense 'generous' (liberal (sense 4 of the adjective) ) gave rise to an obsolete meaning 'free from restraint', leading to liberal (sense 1 of the adjective) (late 18th century)

I think the word liberal has generally the same meaning today (not the right wing framed version) as it did in Washingtons time. We know he was totally against political parties so he obviously wouldn't be Dem or Repub (or Whig or Bull Moose, or any other party created after his time).

We also know that he help create the most liberal government and country on the planet at that time. He helped create a democracy run by the people, based on individual liberty and freedom from church and monarchies.

here is a definition of the word from the Oxford English Dictionary:http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/view/entry/m_en_us1263252?rskey=KZBrKH&result=1#m_en_us1263252

adjective1 open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values:they have more liberal views toward marriage and divorce than some people favorable to or respectful of individual rights and freedoms:liberal citizenship laws (in a political context) favoring maximum individual liberty in political and social reform:a liberal democratic state (Liberal)of or characteristic of Liberals or a Liberal Party(Liberal)(in the UK) of or relating to the Liberal Democrat Party:the Liberal leader Theologyregarding many traditional beliefs as dispensable, invalidated by modern thought, or liable to change2 [attributive] (of education) concerned mainly with broadening a person's general knowledge and experience, rather than with technical or professional training3 (especially of an interpretation of a law) broadly construed or understood; not strictly literal or exact:they could have given the 1968 Act a more liberal interpretation 4 given , used , or occurring in generous amounts:liberal amounts of wine had been consumed (of a person) giving generously:Sam was too liberal with the wine

Origin:Middle English: via Old French from Latin liberalis, from liber 'free (man)'. The original sense was 'suitable for a free man', hence 'suitable for a gentleman' (one not tied to a trade), surviving in liberal arts. Another early sense 'generous' (liberal (sense 4 of the adjective) ) gave rise to an obsolete meaning 'free from restraint', leading to liberal (sense 1 of the adjective) (late 18th century)

by the definition of the word in the late 18th century (which I think generally still applies today)

"open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values"

yes

That covers 95% of the worlds population......

Man, you are reaching Straw. :) I know you can make your case better than that.

By the modern political definition is Washington considered a liberal?, here's wiki's:

Modern American liberalism is a form of social liberalism developed from progressive ideals such as Theodore Roosevelt's New Nationalism, Woodrow Wilson's New Freedom, Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal, John F. Kennedy's New Frontier, and Lyndon Johnson's Great Society. It combines social liberalism and social progressivism with support for a welfare state and a mixed economy. American liberal causes include voting rights for African Americans, abortion rights for women, and government entitlements such as education and health care.[1]

Keynesian economic theory plays an influential role in the economic philosophy of American liberals.[2] These policy stances adhere to the central premise that individual freedom can only exist when it is protected by a strong, democratically elected government that has an active role in society and the economy.[3][4]

John F. Kennedy, a self-described liberal, defined a liberal as follows:“ ...someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people — their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties — someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a 'Liberal', then I’m proud to say I’m a 'Liberal'.[5] ”

Most American liberals support a mixed economy because they fear the extremes of wealth and poverty under unrestrained capitalism; they point to the widespread prosperity enjoyed under a mixed economy in the years since World War II.[6][7] They believe that all citizens are entitled to the basic necessities of life and they champion the protection of the environment.[4][8] Modern American liberalism is typically associated with the Democratic Party.[9] .

As of June 2010, 40% of American voters identify themselves as conservatives, 36% as moderates and 22% as liberals.[10] There has been a high level of stability over the last two decades. In 1992 40% of voters called themselves conservative, 35% moderate and 18% liberal[11]

Man, you are reaching Straw. :) I know you can make your case better than that.

By the modern political definition is Washington considered a liberal?, here's wiki's:

Modern American liberalism is a form of social liberalism developed from progressive ideals such as Theodore Roosevelt's New Nationalism, Woodrow Wilson's New Freedom, Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal, John F. Kennedy's New Frontier, and Lyndon Johnson's Great Society. It combines social liberalism and social progressivism with support for a welfare state and a mixed economy. American liberal causes include voting rights for African Americans, abortion rights for women, and government entitlements such as education and health care.[1]

Keynesian economic theory plays an influential role in the economic philosophy of American liberals.[2] These policy stances adhere to the central premise that individual freedom can only exist when it is protected by a strong, democratically elected government that has an active role in society and the economy.[3][4]

John F. Kennedy, a self-described liberal, defined a liberal as follows:“ ...someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people — their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties — someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a 'Liberal', then I’m proud to say I’m a 'Liberal'.[5] ”

Most American liberals support a mixed economy because they fear the extremes of wealth and poverty under unrestrained capitalism; they point to the widespread prosperity enjoyed under a mixed economy in the years since World War II.[6][7] They believe that all citizens are entitled to the basic necessities of life and they champion the protection of the environment.[4][8] Modern American liberalism is typically associated with the Democratic Party.[9] .

As of June 2010, 40% of American voters identify themselves as conservatives, 36% as moderates and 22% as liberals.[10] There has been a high level of stability over the last two decades. In 1992 40% of voters called themselves conservative, 35% moderate and 18% liberal[11]

I gave you the definition of the word as it was used at teh time (late 18th centure) from the OED

Washington was, among other things an intellectual and surely would have known the common defintion of the word at the time.

Washington was not only a liberal but a radical in his time

The difference between his liberalism and yours is that he tried to get govt off of peoples' backs whereas the modern liberal is nothing more than an agent of govt slavery and oppresssion via onerous regulation, taxation, litigation, etc.

The difference between his liberalism and yours is that he tried to get govt off of peoples' backs whereas the modern liberal is nothing more than an agent of govt slavery and oppresssion via onerous regulation, taxation, litigation, etc.

You gave me the standard definition of the word, not the political definition. The definition you gave applies to 95% of the earth population and is irrelevant in this discussion.

Way to stand firm on your point. (sarcasm)

how do you know "version" Washington was referring to.

The definition was the one used in the late 18th century (according to the Oxford English Dictionary) and is pretty consistent with the actions taken by Washington (i.e. the form of government he was establishing and how it contrasted with the other forms of government at the time)

Stella's definition of "classical liberalism) from the first page of this thread (and for some reason she linked to a post on GetBig rather than Wiki) is a 19th century concept deveoloped in Western Europe and the America's.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalismClassical liberalism is a political ideology that developed in the nineteenth century in Western Europe, and the Americas. It is committed to the ideal of limited government and liberty of individuals including freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and free markets.[1] Notable individuals who have contributed to classical liberalism include Jean-Baptiste Say, Thomas Malthus, and David Ricardo. There was a revival of interest in classical liberalism in the twentieth century led by Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek and other economists.[2][3][4]

The phrase classical liberalism is also sometimes used to refer to all forms of liberalism before the twentieth century. Some conservatives and libertarians use the term classical liberalism to describe their belief in the primacy of economic freedom and minimal government. It is sometimes unclear which meaning is intended in a given source

The definition was the one used in the late 18th century (according to the Oxford English Dictionary) and is pretty consistent with the actions taken by Washington (i.e. the form of government he was establishing and how it contrasted with the other forms of government at the time)

Stella's definition of "classical liberalism) from the first page of this thread (and for some reason she linked to a post on GetBig rather than Wiki) is a 19th century concept deveoloped in Western Europe and the America's.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalismClassical liberalism is a political ideology that developed in the nineteenth century in Western Europe, and the Americas. It is committed to the ideal of limited government and liberty of individuals including freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and free markets.[1] Notable individuals who have contributed to classical liberalism include Jean-Baptiste Say, Thomas Malthus, and David Ricardo. There was a revival of interest in classical liberalism in the twentieth century led by Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek and other economists.[2][3][4]

The phrase classical liberalism is also sometimes used to refer to all forms of liberalism before the twentieth century. Some conservatives and libertarians use the term classical liberalism to describe their belief in the primacy of economic freedom and minimal government. It is sometimes unclear which meaning is intended in a given source

sigh, you squirm like the best of them straw. :)

Would Washington be considered a liberal (the political definition) by today's standards?

Its a real simple question that can have a simple answer and the answer is pertinent to your original premise.

Would Washington be considered a liberal (the political definition) by today's standards?

Its a real simple question that can have a simple answer and the answer is pertinent to your original premise.

LOL just quit now oz he will just go in circles and never admit he contradicted himself or is wrong...its amusing for a while but gets old real quick...like i said a degenerative brain disorder that is rapidly progressing...

LOL just quit now oz he will just go in circles and never admit he contradicted himself or is wrong...its amusing for a while but gets old real quick...like i said a degenerative brain disorder that is rapidly progressing...

you said you cant really define a modern day liberal but you think washington would be considered one...

fair enough but I made the first comment and then did more research and reading and then since Ozmo insisted upon a yes or no answer I gave him a qualified answer based on a specific defnition

For further clarity, I will say (again) that Washington was a radical and liberal in his time and I think, given todays standards of a "LIB" he would still be considered on today. I think that's pretty consistent with the progression of my thought on this thread.

No, you didn't, you gave a general definition not political one. I feel like i am arguing on the Religious board now. :) It's cool though. I know don't enough about Washington and his politics to definitively say one way or another. I was hoping you did, but it seems like all you've been doing is scrambling to defend a poor premise. Based on what he said and what the political definition of liberal is today, from the limited information i have, of which some came from this thread, i wouldn't say they match.

So there's no need to feel ashamed that Washington was a filthy stinking lib and try and rethink my views of liberals which weren't so bad to begin with.

fair enough but I made the first comment and then did more research and reading and then since Ozmo insisted upon a yes or no answer I gave him a qualified answer based on a specific defnition

For further clarity, I will say (again) that Washington was a radical and liberal in his time and I think, given todays standards of a "LIB" he would still be considered on today. I think that's pretty consistent with the progression of my thought on this thread.

your definition of todays lib could easily be a difinition of conservative ::)

No, you didn't, you gave a general definition not political one. I feel like i am arguing on the Religious board now. :) It's cool though. I know don't enough about Washington and his politics to definitively say one way or another. I was hoping you did, but it seems like all you've been doing is scrambling to defend a poor premise. Based on what he said and what the political definition of liberal is today, from the limited information i have, of which some came from this thread, i wouldn't say they match.

So there's no need to feel ashamed that Washington was a filthy stinking lib and try and rethink my views of liberals which weren't so bad to begin with.

dude - go back and read the first question you asked me in this thread.

Did I make any definitive claims about what liberal was then or today or anything?

Washington referred to liberal and liberality and he did that in the late 1700's

The quote by Washington was about "mankind" becoming more liberal. That is not a political context (IMO) and the so called "classical" definition did not even exist at the time of that statement.

My point is calling Washington a filthy stinnking LIB is because that is how a LIB is considered today as framed by the right and I was pointing out the irony of our founding father musing that he hopes to see the nation he helped create "among the foremost nations of justice and liberality"

dude - go back and read the first question you asked me in this thread.

Did I make any definitive claims about what liberal was then or today or anything?

Washington referred to liberal and liberality and he did that in the late 1700's

The quote by Washington was about "mankind" becoming more liberal. That is not a political context (IMO) and the so called "classical" definition did not even exist at the time of that statement.

My point is calling Washington a filthy stinnking LIB is because that is how a LIB is considered today as framed by the right and I was pointing out the irony of our founding father musing that he hopes to see the nation he helped create "among the foremost nations of justice and liberality"

It seems to me, you have to look at what he meant or was meaning and how it relates to the modern definition of Modern Liberalism because you are making the connection not him. Your point is valid only as its a play on words because if he was talking about the general definition of liberality, you comparing or connecting it to modern liberalism is like comparing apples to bowling pins. In other words, upon further review, there is no irony. If you were talking about the political definitions of both then there's no way you can say they are the same.

It seems to me, you have to look at what he meant or was meaning and how it relates to the modern definition of Modern Liberalism because you are making the connection not him. Your point is valid only as its a play on words because if he was talking about the general definition of liberality, you comparing or connecting it to modern liberalism is like comparing apples to bowling pins. In other words, upon further review, there is no irony. If you were talking about the political definitions of both then there's no way you can say they are the same.

There clearly were people who considered themselves liberal based on the definition of the time (and not the "classical" political definition which didn't even exist at the time of Washingtons comments.)

The foundations of this country are based on liberal ideas of the time

There clearly were people who considered themselves liberal based on the definition of the time (and not the "classical" political definition which didn't even exist at the time of Washingtons comments.)

The foundations of this country are based on liberal ideas of the time

There was no conservative angst against "big government" either

Ha ha ha. You are unbelievable.

No angst over Big Govt? __________________________________________________________

BILL OF RIGHTS

First Amendment – Establishment Clause, Free Exercise Clause; freedom of speech, of the press, and of assembly; right to petitionCongress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Second Amendment – Militia (United States), Sovereign state, Right to keep and bear arms.A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. [7]

Third Amendment – Protection from quartering of troops.

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Fourth Amendment – Protection from unreasonable search and seizure.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Sixth Amendment – Trial by jury and rights of the accused; Confrontation Clause, speedy trial, public trial, right to counselIn all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

Seventh Amendment – Civil trial by jury.

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Ninth Amendment – Protection of rights not specifically enumerated in the Constitution.The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Tenth Amendment – Powers of States and people.The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

There clearly were people who considered themselves liberal based on the definition of the time (and not the "classical" political definition which didn't even exist at the time of Washingtons comments.)

The foundations of this country are based on liberal ideas of the time

there was no "big government" back then nor where there conservatives and liberals

there are British colonies pissed off about taxation without representation

no one was bitching about "big govermnent" in any sense like you mean it today because it did not exist

you see what I mean oz?

lol straw look up washington and big government read that farewell speech youve been touting as your reasoning to think he was a lib. He warns about "big government"....LOL what do you think the monarchy in england represented? BIG GOVERNMENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

you said you cant really define a modern day liberal but you think washington would be considered one...

Good gawd. You cant box in a definition like that anymore than you can describe a conservative. Every single person may agree with some of the points of a party but disagree with others. You guys are mainly arguing that of a "social liberal" vs "classic liberal" And both parties fall VERY short of what they are supposed to stand for.

BTW. Straw has owned all of you quite well. Its like your all racing in 3rd gear and he hit 6th and is gone beyond your apprehension.

Good gawd. You cant box in a definition like that anymore than you can describe a conservative. Every single person may agree with some of the points of a party but disagree with others. You guys are mainly arguing that of a "social liberal" vs "classic liberal" And both parties fall VERY short of what they are supposed to stand for.

BTW. Straw has owned all of you quite well. Its like your all racing in 3rd gear and he hit 6th and is gone beyond your apprehension.

LOL you say you cant define the term liberal but then you say straw has owned us even though he says he thinks washington would be a liberal today even though you cant define the term...and you think we got owned...

LOL you say you cant define the term liberal but then you say straw has owned us even though he says he thinks washington would be a liberal today even though you cant define the term...and you think we got owned...

go to bed little boy, grown ups are talking...

Which liberal are you talking about dumbass? must be dark in your head.

No, straw thought it was intersting that the classic definition of liberal was similiar to what conservative values are supposed to be. Yet neo-cons, repubs have destroyed the economy thru bubbles, dergulation and govt growth. They are opposite of what they should be. Tht is why they had faith in the tea party for awhile, but putting palin as spokesperson turned most away from it and its splintering to find new ground.

The 2 party system is going away fast, i feel.

So, there are MANY kinds and degrees of liberals and MANY kinds of splintered groups of conservatives.

No, straw thought it was intersting that the classic definition of liberal was similiar to what conservative values are supposed to be. Yet neo-cons, repubs have destroyed the economy thru bubbles, dergulation and govt growth. They are opposite of what they should be. Tht is why they had faith in the tea party for awhile, but putting palin as spokesperson turned most away from it and its splintering to find new ground.

The 2 party system is going away fast, i feel.

So, there are MANY kinds and degrees of liberals and MANY kinds of splintered groups of conservatives.

LMFAO no apparently you need to go back and read....he has said point blank that he cant define todays liberal and has said point blank that he thinks washington would be considered a liberal today...

SECONDLY your post shows you know little to nothing about the financial problems that lead to the economy...first off it started under clinton not bush, second there was plenty of regulation that was in place that could have prevented the fall but ppl being asleep at the wheel, not realizing how seperate actions could impact our economy was the problem...there was plenty of regulation in place that could have prevented this...

Yeah, the founders resemble modern day liberals. ha ha ha. No wonder we have Obama with utter stupidity like Straw and War horse have demonstrated in this thread.

______________________________________________________Words from our Founding Fathers Power of the Government

"The issue today is the same as it has been throughout all history, whether man shall be allowed to govern himself or be ruled by a small elite." -- Thomas Jefferson

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." --Thomas Jefferson

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty." --Thomas Jefferson

"There are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." -- James Madison

"We must confine ourselves to the powers described in the Constitution, and the moment we pass it, we take an arbitrary stride towards a despotic Government." -- James Jackson

"All men having power ought to be distrusted to a certain degree." -- James Madison

"We still find the greedy hand of government thrusting itself into every corner and crevice of industry, and grasping at the spoil of the multitude. Invention is continually exercised to furnish new pretenses for revenue and taxation. It watches prosperity as its prey and permits none to escape without a tribute." -- Thomas Paine

"The moment the idea is admitted into society, that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence." -- John Adams

"It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood. . ." -- James Madison

What these men are saying is that the government derives its power from the people, not the other way around. People are born with rights granted from God, not government. There is also an obvious fear that powerful men will only want more power. How prophetic.

Second Amendment Rights

"The great object is, that every man be armed ... Every one who is able may have a gun." -- Patrick Henry

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." -- Alexander Hamilton

" ... to disarm the people - that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." -- George Mason

"What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms." -- Thomas Jefferson

"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government." -- George Washington

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American." -- Tench Coxe, of Pennsylvania, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship." --Professor Alexander Tytler over 200 years ago

"We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans." -- President Bill Clinton

"The purpose of government is to rein in the rights of the people" -- President Bill Clinton

"If the personal freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution inhibit the government's ability to govern the people, we should look to limit those guarantees." -- President Bill Clinton

"You know the one thing that's wrong with this country? Everyone gets a chance to have their fair say." -- President Bill Clinton

"Anyone who is not a liberal in his youth has no heart. Anyone who remains so as he matures has no brain!" -- Sir Winston Churchill

"We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society." -- Hillary Clinton

"Many of you are well enough off that . . . the tax cuts may have helped you. We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." -- Hillary Clinton

Deriding America as an "on your own" society, "I prefer a 'we're all in it together' society. . .I believe our government can once again work for all Americans. It can promote the great American tradition of opportunity for all and special privileges for none." -- Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton

"We did indeed know much about your preparedness. We knew that probably every second home in your country contained firearms. We knew that your country actually had state championships for private citizens shooting military rifles. We were not fools to set foot in such quicksand." -- A Japanese Admiral 15 years after VJ day on why Japan didn't invade the US mainland after Pearl Harbor.

"Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA. Ordinary citizens don't need guns, as their having guns doesn't serve the State." -- Heinrich Himmler 1936

Yeah, the founders resemble modern day liberals. ha ha ha. No wonder we have Obama with utter stupidity like Straw and War horse have demonstrated in this thread.

______________________________________________________Words from our Founding Fathers Power of the Government

"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government." -- George Washington

sure sounds like he was worried about big government to me...what about you straw?

A Bill of Rights is what the people are entitled to against every government, and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inference. Thomas Jefferson

A coward is much more exposed to quarrels than a man of spirit.

Thomas Jefferson

A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks.

Thomas Jefferson

A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government.

sure sounds like he was worried about big government to me...what about you straw?

I don't know where you went to school but I don't recall being taught the the reason for the America Revolution was because the colonies were upset about the size of the British Monarchy. I don't recall any lessons about how they were upset about the national debt the king was racking up or the budget deficit or the fact that the king forced them to have social security, medicare, or even more mundane things like that free education that the king forced them to have.

My recollection is that they were pissed about being taxed and getting nothing in return and getting no say in their own goverment

sorry I don't see any correlation with the founding of this country and the modern day right wing conservative delusions about "big government"

Lets go to the founding documents Straw. Sounds like a modern day lib right? ::) ::)

______________________________________________-

IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

there is no Lib party and there no Lib platform that wants big governement or any of the other stuff you attribute to Libs in your right wing fear and paranoia

btw - where is that list of grievances is anything about big government or any of the other stuff that current day right wingers have made up and falsely attributed to "LIBS"?

You deluded libs do it all to youself. Anyone, with a brain of course, who lives in IL, CA, NY, MI, or any other state run by far left communists, knows that they are the furthest thing than was ever envisioned with the founding of this nation.

You deluded libs do it all to youself. Anyone, with a brain of course, who lives in IL, CA, NY, MI, or any other state run by far left communists, knows that they are the furthest thing than was ever envisioned with the founding of this nation.

do you have any clue have ridiculous you sound when you say that a state is run by far left communists?

Good gawd. You cant box in a definition like that anymore than you can describe a conservative. Every single person may agree with some of the points of a party but disagree with others. You guys are mainly arguing that of a "social liberal" vs "classic liberal" And both parties fall VERY short of what they are supposed to stand for.

BTW. Straw has owned all of you quite well. Its like your all racing in 3rd gear and he hit 6th and is gone beyond your apprehension.

I don't know where you went to school but I don't recall being taught the the reason for the America Revolution was because the colonies were upset about the size of the British Monarchy. I don't recall any lessons about how they were upset about the national debt the king was racking up or the budget deficit or the fact that the king forced them to have social security, medicare, or even more mundane things like that free education that the king forced them to have.

My recollection is that they were pissed about being taxed and getting nothing in return and getting no say in their own goverment

sorry I don't see any correlation with the founding of this country and the modern day right wing conservative delusions about "big government"

you do understand that when the term "big government" is used it isnt referring necissarily to the actual geographic size of govt? right?

it refers to the power of the govt has over its constituents...as in being able to tax someone without proper represntation YOU FUKING MORON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

the reach of the government in terms of geographical size... ;) I know that was a tough one but Im going to give you one thats a tad tougher...Im almost afraid to ask but what do you believe "big government" is?

so you think the "reach" of the US government is to large in terms of geographical size?

what is the "geographical size" of the government at the current moment?

Probably more than you would imagine. Homeland Security has over 70 physical buildings alone. I'd imagine FEMA is probably substantial too. I don't think that was Tony's point, but as long as you're going to cry about it...

What at first was plunder assumed the softer name of revenue. ~Thomas Paine

If, from the more wretched parts of the old world, we look at those which are in an advanced stage of improvement, we still find the greedy hand of government thrusting itself into every corner and crevice of industry, and grasping the spoil of the multitude. Invention is continually exercised, to furnish new pretenses for revenues and taxation. It watches prosperity as its prey and permits none to escape without tribute. ~Thomas Paine

An unlimited power to tax involves, necessarily, a power to destroy; because there is a limit beyond which no institution and no property can bear taxation.

John Marshall, McCullough v. Maryland, 1819

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.

Noah Webster, An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, 1787

Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants. Indeed, these two sciences run into each other. The divine law, as discovered by reason and the moral sense, forms an essential part of both.

James Wilson

Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.

If men of wisdom and knowledge, of moderation and temperance, of patience, fortitude and perseverance, of sobriety and true republican simplicity of manners, of zeal for the honour of the Supreme Being and the welfare of the commonwealth; if men possessed of these other excellent qualities are chosen to fill the seats of government, we may expect that our affairs will rest on a solid and permanent foundation.

"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a monied aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. The issuing power (of money) should be taken away from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs."

- Thomas Jefferson*****************************

WHO SIGNED INTO LAW THE CREATION OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE STRAW?

History, in general, only informs us what bad government is.

- Thomas Jefferson*****************************WHO SAYS THAT GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE A FORCE FOR GOOD STRAW?

"Our properties within our own territories [should not] be taxed or regulated by any power on earth but our own." -Thomas Jefferson *****************************

KYOTO & GLOBAL CARBON TAXES ANYONE?

Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"-Patrick Henry *****************************

SELF EXPLANATORY

The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.- Thomas Jefferson [What would Jefferson say today?]*****************************

Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of Liberty.- Thomas Jefferson*****************************

SELF EXPLANATORY

"In questions of power then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution."- Thomas Jefferson*****************************

YEAH STRAW - THE FOUNDERS DID NOT FEAR BIG GOVERNMENT. ::) ::)

I place economy among the first and most important virtues, and public debt as the greatest of dangers to be feared. To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. If we run into such debts, we must be taxed in our meat and drink, in our necessities and in our comforts, in our labor and in our amusements. If we can prevent the government from wasting the labor of the people, under the pretense of caring for them, they will be happy.- Thomas Jefferson [What would Jefferson say today?]*****************************

OBAMA, KRUGMAN, ET AL - WE MUST DEFICIT SPEND TO HELP THE ECONOMY. ::) ::) ::)

"I hope a tax will be preferred [to a loan which threatens to saddle us with a perpetual debt], because it will awaken the attention of the people and make reformation and economy the principle of the next election. The frequent recurrence of this chastening operation can alone restrain the propensity of governments to enlarge expense beyond income."-Thomas Jefferson to Albert Gallatin, 1820. [What would Jefferson say today?]*****************************

AGAIN STRAW - DOES JEFFERSON FEAR BIG GOVT? YES OR NO?

To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.-Thomas Jefferson [What would Jefferson say today?]*****************************

HHMMMM????? NOT LOOKING TOO GOOD STRAW FOR BIG GOVT.

I think we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious.-Thomas Jefferson [What would Jefferson say today? What would the Democrats say of such a statement today?]*****************************

HEY STRAW - WHAT SAY YOU ABOUT JEFFERSONS' VIEW ON BIG GOVT NOW?

With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.- James Madison*****************************

STRAW = OWNED AGAIN.

"The principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale." -Thomas Jefferson*****************************

SELF EXPLANATORY.

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States." -Noah Webster*****************************

SOUNDS JUST LIKE THE ANTI-GUN LEFT. ::) ::) ::)

"A nation of well informed men who have been taught to know and prize the rights which God has given them cannot be enslaved. It is in the region of ignorance that tyranny begins." - Benjamin Franklin*****************************

SOUNDS JUST LIKE THE LEFT RIGHT STRAW? ::) ::)

"The Tenth Amendment is the foundation of the Constitution." - Thomas Jefferson*****************************

"It is impossible for the man of pious reflection not to perceive in [the Constitution] a finger of that Almighty hand which has been so frequently and signally extended to our relief in the critical stages of the revolution." - James Madison, Father of the Constitution.*****************************

I CAN JUST HEAR OBAMA SAY THIS. OH THATS' RIGHT, THAT ASSHOLE SAID THE CONSTITUTION IS FATALY FLAWED.

"The belief in a God All Powerful wise and good, is so essential to the moral order of the world and to the happiness of man, that arguments which enforce it cannot be drawn from too many sources nor adapted with too much solicitude to the different characters and capacities impressed with it."--James Madison*****************************

SOUND LIKE RACHELL AND KIETH NO STRAW? ::) ::)

"Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should, therefore, be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything mean everything or nothing at pleasure."--Thomas Jefferson *****************************

2000 PAGE MONSTROCITIES ANYONE?

If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare... they may appoint teachers in every state... The powers of Congress would subvert the very foundation, the very nature of the limited government established by the people of America.- James Madison*****************************

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them (around the banks), will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.

When the government fears the people there is liberty; when the people fear the government there is tyranny.

The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.

The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers

To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

What country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance

I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.

God who gave us life gave us liberty.

Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto.

Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.

An elective despotism was not the government we fought for, but one which should not only be founded on true free principles, but in which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced among general bodies of magistracy, as that no one could transcend their legal limits without being effectually checked and restrained by the others.

Strawman just suffers from a common liberal malady - an inability to simply say, "yeah, maybe I was wrong on this one". As if the admission itself would be of such great harm that its utterance must be forever barred.

I think the word liberal has generally the same meaning today (not the right wing framed version) as it did in Washingtons time. We know he was totally against political parties so he obviously wouldn't be Dem or Repub (or Whig or Bull Moose, or any other party created after his time).

We also know that he help create the most liberal government and country on the planet at that time. He helped create a democracy run by the people, based on individual liberty and freedom from church and monarchies.

here is a definition of the word from the Oxford English Dictionary:http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/view/entry/m_en_us1263252?rskey=KZBrKH&result=1#m_en_us1263252

adjective1 open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values:they have more liberal views toward marriage and divorce than some people favorable to or respectful of individual rights and freedoms:liberal citizenship laws (in a political context) favoring maximum individual liberty in political and social reform:a liberal democratic state (Liberal)of or characteristic of Liberals or a Liberal Party(Liberal)(in the UK) of or relating to the Liberal Democrat Party:the Liberal leader Theologyregarding many traditional beliefs as dispensable, invalidated by modern thought, or liable to change2 [attributive] (of education) concerned mainly with broadening a person's general knowledge and experience, rather than with technical or professional training3 (especially of an interpretation of a law) broadly construed or understood; not strictly literal or exact:they could have given the 1968 Act a more liberal interpretation 4 given , used , or occurring in generous amounts:liberal amounts of wine had been consumed (of a person) giving generously:Sam was too liberal with the wine

Origin:Middle English: via Old French from Latin liberalis, from liber 'free (man)'. The original sense was 'suitable for a free man', hence 'suitable for a gentleman' (one not tied to a trade), surviving in liberal arts. Another early sense 'generous' (liberal (sense 4 of the adjective) ) gave rise to an obsolete meaning 'free from restraint', leading to liberal (sense 1 of the adjective) (late 18th century)

well why didn't you start at the top and use this paragraph (btw I assume you are aware of the general time in history of the remarks by Washington)

Here are a few selections for you:

In 16th century England, liberal could have positive or negative attributes in referring to someone's generosity or indiscretion.[8] In Much Ado About Nothing, Shakespeare wrote of "a liberal villaine" who "hath...confest his vile encounters".[9] With the rise of the Enlightenment, the word acquired decisively more positive undertones, being defined as "free from narrow prejudice" in 1781 and "free from bigotry" in 1823.[10] In 1815, the first use of the word liberalism appeared in English.[11] By the middle of the 19th century, liberal started to be used as a politicized term for parties and movements all over the world.

Liberalism first became a powerful force in the Age of Enlightenment, rejecting several foundational assumptions that dominated most earlier theories of government, such as hereditary status, established religion, absolute monarchy, and the Divine Right of Kings.

there are plenty of other salient points in the wiki link too but then you're the one who posted it so I assume you're read through it

well why didn't you start at the top and use this paragraph (btw I assume you are aware of the general time in history of the remarks by Washington)

Here are a few selections for you:

In 16th century England, liberal could have positive or negative attributes in referring to someone's generosity or indiscretion.[8] In Much Ado About Nothing, Shakespeare wrote of "a liberal villaine" who "hath...confest his vile encounters".[9] With the rise of the Enlightenment, the word acquired decisively more positive undertones, being defined as "free from narrow prejudice" in 1781 and "free from bigotry" in 1823.[10] In 1815, the first use of the word liberalism appeared in English.[11] By the middle of the 19th century, liberal started to be used as a politicized term for parties and movements all over the world.

Liberalism first became a powerful force in the Age of Enlightenment, rejecting several foundational assumptions that dominated most earlier theories of government, such as hereditary status, established religion, absolute monarchy, and the Divine Right of Kings.

there are plenty of other salient points in the wiki link too but then you're the one who posted it so I assume you're read through it

Straw - you now claim that you only quoted Washington and not the other founders. But if GW did not feel they all shared his vision of the nation, that being limited govt, why would he have agreed to lead the continental army and take the helm of the Declaration of Independence as written by TJ?

Strawman just suffers from a common liberal malady - an inability to simply say, "yeah, maybe I was wrong on this one". As if the admission itself would be of such great harm that its utterance must be forever barred.

Skip- In a thread about a month ago where I was berating KC, I said the exact same thing. I really should have that post published. I don't know if it applies to all liberals, or just the ones who post here.

Skip- In a thread about a month ago where I was berating KC, I said the exact same thing. I really should have that post published. I don't know if it applies to all liberals, or just the ones who post here.

Not all. Not sure if it's an ideological thing, but IMO the inability to acknowledge mistakes shows a lack of intelligence (among other things).

Skip- In a thread about a month ago where I was berating KC, I said the exact same thing. I really should have that post published. I don't know if it applies to all liberals, or just the ones who post here.

Funny you should mention that. I actually had KC tell me that "i'm" is correct, not "I'm". I had to just let that one go. How do you argue with that level of ignorance?

Reminds me of a time I was at a small town meeting (going back about 15yrs now). A woman actually stood up and said, "I don't know where you city folk get milk from, but around here we get it from cows." Can you really have a discussion with that kind of mentality?

Good gawd. You cant box in a definition like that anymore than you can describe a conservative. Every single person may agree with some of the points of a party but disagree with others. You guys are mainly arguing that of a "social liberal" vs "classic liberal" And both parties fall VERY short of what they are supposed to stand for.

BTW. Straw has owned all of you quite well. Its like your all racing in 3rd gear and he hit 6th and is gone beyond your apprehension.

"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness -- these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."

"It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible." - George Washington

"Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor; and Whereas both Houses of Congress have, by their joint committee, requested me "to recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness:

"Now, therefore, I do recommend and assign Thursday, the 26th day of November next, to be devoted by the people of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the signal and manifold mercies and the favorable interpositions of His providence in the course and conclusion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty which we have since enjoyed; for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enable to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately instituted' for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and, in general, for all the great and various favors which He has been pleased to confer upon us." - George Washington, Thanksgiving Proclamation, October 3, 1789

On April 30, 1789, George Washington delivered his famous Inaugural Address to both Houses of Congress. He had just taken the oath of office on the balcony of Federal Hall in New York City, with his hand upon a Bible opened to Deuteronomy, Chapter 28:

"Such being the impressions under which I have, in obedience to the public summons, repaired to the present station, it would be peculiarly improper to omit, in this first official act, my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the universe, who presides in the councils of nations and whose providential aides can supply every human defect; that His benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the people of the United States a government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes; and may enable every instrument employed in its administration to execute with success, the functions allotted to his charge. In tendering this homage to the Great Author of every public and private good, I assure myself that it expresses your sentiments not less than my own; nor those of my fellow citizens at large, less than either. No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men more than the people of the United States. Every step by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency. And in the important revolution just accomplished, in the system of their United government, the tranquil deliberations and voluntary consent of so many distinct communities, from which the event has resulted, can not be compared with the means by which most governments have been established, without some return of pious gratitude, along with an humble anticipation of the future blessings which the past seem to presage ... We ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained; and since the preservation of the sacred fire of liberty and the destiny of the republican model of government are justly considered as deeply, perhaps finally, staked on the experiment...

_________________________________

Souneds just like obama, reid, pelosi, and the other far left commies. ::)

IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. —

IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men,

What does that mean to you Straw?

You should try using shorter quotes and then speaking your own mind

why didn't every human being enjoy equal rights at the time this was written?

if "rights" come from God then why doesn't everyone have the same rights all the time, and enforced by god?

at the time this was written only white property owners were allowed to vote and the humans who wrote it owned other human beings as slaves

after a civil war over a very easy and basic question about "equality" we gave black men the right to vote (if you could read, pay a tax, etc..) while any woman (white, black, etc..) wouldn't get that right for 50 more years

do you know what was happening?

the country was becoming more liberal and not just that but in LEADING the way in Liberal ideas like "equal rights for everyone"

just like Washington was talking about

"As Mankind becomes more liberal, they will be more apt to allow that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are equally entitled to the protections of civil government. I hope ever to see America among the foremost nations of justice and liberality."

If these have been posted I missed them, so I apologize if there's a repeat:

"God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever; That a revolution of the wheel of fortune, a change of situation, is among possible events; that it may become probable by Supernatural influence! The Almighty has no attribute which can take side with us in that event" Thomas Jefferson

"Here is my creed. I believe in one God, the creator of the universe. That he governs it by his providence. That he ought to be worshipped. That the most acceptable service we render to him is in doing good to his other children. That the soul of man is immortal and will be treated with justice in another life respecting its conduct in this. Ben Franklin

"It is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor." George Washington

I laughed at times when reading this thread. But, some posts gave me a reason to worry. Those posts clearly show why liberals should be considered a threat to this country due to their contempt for the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, the founding fathers and the history of this nation.

if you had to defend yourself in court over an incident of self defence would you argue that your right to defend yourself came from God (again which God) or would you make a legal argument

btw - since when were you even religious and making arguments based on "god"

this is a new one for you

I believe in God fully, just not organized religion. I believe our funsdamental rights are ENDOWED by our creator to where neither you, obama, newt, bush, palin, or anyone else can take them away from me.

And if you try, I fully believe in the right to take whatever measures necessary, including violent revolution, to beat you back from usurpring my inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happieness. we are supposed to be a govt that operates on the consent of the governed, not he jack boot of the govt a few whackos wants to shove down our throats.

I believe in God fully, just not organized religion. I believe our funsdamental rights are ENDOWED by our creator to where neither you, obama, newt, bush, palin, or anyone else can take them away from me.

And if you try, I fully believe in the right to take whatever measures necessary, including violent revolution, to beat you back from usurpring my inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happieness. we are supposed to be a govt that operates on the consent of the governed, not he jack boot of the govt a few whackos wants to shove down our throats.

why do you keep saying stuff like the bold type above

no one has said any of that.

do you realize that you literally imagine things that didn't really happen (like Obama calling himself a messiah) and they you drive yourself absolutely crazy with that made up belief

btw - if you have a God given right to life then why can the state take your life away

do you realize that you literally imagine things that didn't really happen (like Obama calling himself a messiah) and they you drive yourself absolutely crazy with that made up belief

btw - if you have a God given right to life then why can the state take your life away

Because in certain cases, people have forfeited that right via their actions, most usually, in grotesque actions like taking the life of many others or others in certain circumstances, to where society as a whole has deemed it so.

philisophically I have no problem with capital punishment, however, the problems in the justice system make me less in support of it as i used to be.

Because in certain cases, people have forfeited that right via their actions, most usually, in grotesque actions like taking the life of many others or others in certain circumstances, to where society as a whole has deemed it so.

philisophically I have no problem with capital punishment, however, the problems in the justice system make me less in support of it as i used to be.

so God gives rights but then has rules about forfeiture

Since the state can put you in prison I guess the state has the right to over-ride your "god given" right of liberty too.

Is there somewhere I can read all the rights from god and all the rules about such rights

I'll grant you that I can see how people would think that "life" comes from God but I don't see how you can call that a right.

It's really just a biological process and nothing more.

The other two are nice platitudes but Liberty is nothing more than the fact that, as a nation, we are self-governing and I wasn't aware that this came from God

Pursuit of Happiness??

what does that even mean and how does it come from God.

BTW - what God are we even talking about.

333 - were these the rights you were referring to?

All the rights we enjoy as citizens of this country are solely the creation of man

I can't believe I even need to point that out

How is life a right from God? simply because we have a right to exist founded on the very fact that we were created...all men have the right to exist, as well as in the same manner and function...this doesn't mean all men end up equal but they are given the equal right to life.

Liberty, we are free to pursue life in the manner we best see fit, based on the right of life.

Pursuit of happiness, within our liberty, (Originally pursuit of happiness read Pursuit of Property) meaning we had the right to own property, not simply land but all things gained by our liberty were rightfully ours and belonged to no one else.

These three rights are given to all men so as long as in whatever they do does not infringe upon these three rights of another individual.

What God our we talking about? The Judeo/Christian God, who else, that's what our founders based this off of...you can also look to John Locke, there are a lot of similarities in this.

How is life a right from God? simply because we have a right to exist founded on the very fact that we were created...all men have the right to exist, as well as in the same manner and function...this doesn't mean all men end up equal but they are given the equal right to life.

Liberty, we are free to pursue life in the manner we best see fit, based on the right of life.

Pursuit of happiness, within our liberty, (Originally pursuit of happiness read Pursuit of Property) meaning we had the right to own property, not simply land but all things gained by our liberty were rightfully ours and belonged to no one else.

These three rights are given to all men so as long as in whatever they do does not infringe upon these three rights of another individual.

What God our we talking about? The Judeo/Christian God, who else, that's what our founders based this off of...you can also look to John Locke, there are a lot of similarities in this.

Well many of the founders were Deist and most did not believe in trinity, the divinity of jesus, miracles, etc.. but besides that point at the time the Declaration was written there were human beings in this country who did not have their "god given" right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Why didn't God enforce their rights?

I don't believe any rights that we currently enjoy come from any "god"

All the rights we have come from man and man's creation ....government and legal system

Well many of the founders were Deist and most did not believe in trinity, the divinity of jesus, miracles, etc.. but besides that point at the time the Declaration was written there were human beings in this country who did not have their "god given" right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Why didn't God enforce their rights?

I don't believe any rights that we currently enjoy come from any "god"

All the rights we have come from man and man's creation ....government and legal system

So then you agree I have the right through the electoral process to take away your rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

I can not believe there is even an argument that God created the rights of this country. What foolish nonsense. God created the rights of this country no more than he created the rights, or lack of, for Communist Russia. The rights we enjoy are derived from men. Those men may have believed in God or they may have said they did at least. But to believe that the constitution and declaration are somehow written by God or from the hands of God is as foolish as saying the Nazi extermination camps were created by God or 9/11 was God's will.

I can not believe there is even an argument that God created the rights of this country. What foolish nonsense. God created the rights of this country no more than he created the rights, or lack of, for Communist Russia. The rights we enjoy are derived from men. Those men may have believed in God or they may have said they did at least. But to believe that the constitution and declaration are somehow written by God or from the hands of God is as foolish as saying the Nazi extermination camps were created by God or 9/11 was God's will.

^ Proof that KC's parents are siblings.

Obviously you're too stupid to understand the argument being waged here. Nobody claims that God wrote the constitution or declaration of independence you douchebag. The argument is that some rights are fundamental to all human beings and are mandated by a higher power than a legion of politicians scribbling legislation down on a piece of paper. Freedom of speech, marriage, freedom of religion, etc. etc. are all fundamental rights that the framers felt were so important to the public, that God, rather than the framers themselves was the final authority on such matters. Nobody is claiming that God appeared to Thomas Jefferson and told him and his pals to write another chapter of the Bible.

Obviously you're too stupid to understand the argument being waged here. Nobody claims that God wrote the constitution or declaration of independence you douchebag. The argument is that some rights are fundamental to all human beings and are mandated by a higher power than a legion of politicians scribbling legislation down on a piece of paper. Freedom of speech, marriage, freedom of religion, etc. etc. are all fundamental rights that the framers felt were so important to the public, that God, rather than the framers themselves was the final authority on such matters. Nobody is claiming that God appeared to Thomas Jefferson and told him and his pals to write another chapter of the Bible.

when did the framers talk about freedom of marriage

if freedom of speech and religion are god given rights then why did we even need to write a Constitution or Bill of Rights in the first place

I'm sure black men in the 1700's happily enjoyed their god given rights of life, liberly and the pursuit of happines

i saw on the history Channel that washington was a BRUTAL killer when it came to indians.

As kids, we always heard about cherry trees and wooden teeth... not that he encouraged some serious carnage.

So was Andrew Jackson. His Indian policies of that era were pretty cruel. However, it doesn't change the vision these men had. Society progresses. I'm not sure what would have happened to Native Americans if left to their own devices. I think it was pretty shitty that they ended up on reservations with some of the worst land North America had to offer. Native Americans have been more marginalized than any black has ever been in America. When was the last time you ever saw a multimillion dollar indian rapper? Indian sports star? Indian celebrity? Save for a few here and there they don't exist. Yet what do we here? The constant bullshit spewing out of black people about how they were treated so piss poorly by white people and everyone around them.....boo hoo................blacks should have gotten over their slavery bullshit back in the 1960s but they still can't. Hence why they are still suffering an identity crisis to this day. At least Native Americans have progressed enough to speak English properly.

Why did we need a constitution or bill of rights, because the framers understood the dangers of an all powerful central government.

And I suppose you only believe that white people were slave owners as well?

all races have a long history of enslaving each other all over the planet but I'm not aware of any black slave owners in colonial America

you're suggesting the the founders our our powerful central goverment (who wanted the federal goverment to have more power than the states) somehow were motivated to create said government because of the dangers of the powerful central governemet that they were in the process of creating. In fact, our first president expanded the government and raised taxes during his entire time in office

all races have a long history of enslaving each other all over the planet but I'm not aware of any black slave owners in colonial America

you're suggesting the the founders our our powerful central goverment (who wanted the federal goverment to have more power than the states) somehow were motivated to create said government because of the dangers of the powerful central governemet that they were in the process of creating. In fact, our first president expanded the government and raised taxes during his entire time in office

I don't know where you get your information, the constitution is specifically designed to limit the power of the federal government, and give the power to the states/people.

How did GW expand government? And as far as taxation, they actually used the money to pay off debt not create social programs.

if freedom of speech and religion are god given rights then why did we even need to write a Constitution or Bill of Rights in the first place

I'm sure black men in the 1700's happily enjoyed their god given rights of life, liberly and the pursuit of happines

It's because of responses like this that I don't take you seriously and make fun of you all of the time. It's a waste of my intellect to respond to this drivel. Do you have anything remotely interesting, well reasoned, or articulate to add to this discussion besides,why did we even need to write a Constitution or Bill of Rights in the first place?

It's because of responses like this that I don't take you seriously and make fun of you all of the time. It's a waste of my intellect to respond to this drivel. Do you have anything remotely interesting, well reasoned, or articulate to add to this discussion besides,why did we even need to write a Constitution or Bill of Rights in the first place?

What are you like 12 years old?

the statement was in response to your claim that somehow these rights are, as you wrote: "mandated by a higher power than a legion of politicians scribbling legislation down on a piece of paper"

If that were actually true then there would be no need to write them down, i.e. no need to create an Constitution or Bill of Rights.

BTW - where in the Constitution do the framers mention God or, as you wrote:

"Freedom of speech, marriage, freedom of religion, etc. etc. are all fundamental rights that the framers felt were so important to the public, that God, rather than the framers themselves was the final authority on such matters"

Where do you get the idea that God is the final authority on freedom of speech, religion or marriage

Most of the prominent founding fathers of the US were deists, agnostics or aetheists who believed in a secular government and hailed from the enlightenment train of thought i.e. science, logic, and reason. Washington, Adams, Jefferson, etc. even made fun of Christianity and religion many times throughout their lives. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights were not based on Judeo Christian values at all. This is a fact that has been twisted throughout history, even by well intentioned people. Now if you want to argue that American society that grew up around the Constitution and the Bill of Rights etc. was based on Christian values that is true. 90% of early Americans were Christian. But those beliefs had no bearing on the founding of this country i.e. government, Constitution etc.

I hold (without appeal to revelation) that when we take a view of the universe, in all its parts, general or particular, it is impossible for the human mind not to perceive and feel a conviction of design, consummate skill, and indefinite power in every atom of its composition...

...it is impossible I say, for the human mind not to believe that there is in all this design, cause and effect up to an ultimate cause, a fabricator of all things from matter and motion, their preserver and regulator while permitted to exist in their present forms, and their regeneration into new and other forms. We see, too evident proofs of the necessity of a superintending power to maintain the universe in its course and order...

Most of the prominent founding fathers of the US were deists, agnostics or aetheists who believed in a secular government and hailed from the enlightenment train of thought i.e. science, logic, and reason. Washington, Adams, Jefferson, etc. even made fun of Christianity and religion many times throughout their lives. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights were not based on Judeo Christian values at all. This is a fact that has been twisted throughout history, even by well intentioned people. Now if you want to argue that American society that grew up around the Constitution and the Bill of Rights etc. was based on Christian values that is true. 90% of early Americans were Christian. But those beliefs had no bearing on the founding of this country i.e. government, Constitution etc.

Jesus was an alien and we were genetically engineered makes more sense than some bullshit claim of an all loving god anyways. So who the fuck really cares nowadays about "god". It can mean anything to anyone. Nature is the most important force that guides us. And the only people who ever embraced nature and truly lived in an egalitarian, just and equitable society for their time were Native Americans. Yes they treated women bad, scalped people and other bullshit.....but overall......if I had to live in any time during the history of human beings and live in a culture it would have been in a Native American indian tribe before white man stepped foot on North America.

So who gives a fuck what Washington said. The world has changed and will forever change when we realize we are not the only intelligent life form in the universe.

I hold (without appeal to revelation) that when we take a view of the universe, in all its parts, general or particular, it is impossible for the human mind not to perceive and feel a conviction of design, consummate skill, and indefinite power in every atom of its composition...

...it is impossible I say, for the human mind not to believe that there is in all this design, cause and effect up to an ultimate cause, a fabricator of all things from matter and motion, their preserver and regulator while permitted to exist in their present forms, and their regeneration into new and other forms. We see, too evident proofs of the necessity of a superintending power to maintain the universe in its course and order...

Well many of the founders were Deist and most did not believe in trinity, the divinity of jesus, miracles, etc.. but besides that point at the time the Declaration was written there were human beings in this country who did not have their "god given" right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Why didn't God enforce their rights?

I don't believe any rights that we currently enjoy come from any "god"

All the rights we have come from man and man's creation ....government and legal system

The bold^^^ nothing more than a propagated lie in order to circumvent the rights granted by the constitution. Beyond that it makes no sense. If someone doesn't believe in God, fine, that's their choice, their right but to twist the beliefs of others only to create a false image makes no sense unless one is trying to twist the intent of the original statements, in this case the constitution.

Let's look at what some of the founders said in regards to God and Christ:

Samuel Adams:Known as "The Father of the American Revolution" and signer of the Declaration of Independence

"I . . . recommend my Soul to that Almighty Being who gave it, and my body I commit to the dust, relying upon the merits of Jesus Christ for a pardon of all my sins."

Benjamin Rush: Signer of the Declaration of Independence"My only hope of salvation is in the infinite, transcendent love of God manifested to the world by the death of His Son upon the cross. Nothing but His blood will wash away my sins. I rely exclusively upon it. Come, Lord Jesus! Come quickly!"

John Dickinson: Signer of the Constitution"Rendering thanks to my Creator for my existence and station among His works, for my birth in a country enlightened by the Gospel and enjoying freedom, and for all His other kindnesses, to Him I resign myself, humbly confiding in His goodness and in His mercy through Jesus Christ for the events of eternity."John Hancock: Signer of the Deceleration of Independence" I John Hancock, . . . being advanced in years and being of perfect mind and memory-thanks be given to God-therefore calling to mind the mortality of my body and knowing it is appointed for all men once to die [Hebrews 9:27], do make and ordain this my last will and testament…Principally and first of all, I give and recommend my soul into the hands of God that gave it: and my body I recommend to the earth . . . nothing doubting but at the general resurrection I shall receive the same again by the mercy and power of God"Patrick Henry: Governor of Virginia and Writer of Articles of Confederation"This is all the inheritance I can give to my dear family. The religion of Christ can give them one which will make them rich indeed."

John Jay: First Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court"Unto Him who is the author and giver of all good, I render sincere and humble thanks for His manifold and unmerited blessings, and especially for our redemption and salvation by His beloved son. He has been pleased to bless me with excellent parents, with a virtuous wife, and with worthy children. His protection has companied me through many eventful years, faithfully employed in the service of my country; His providence has not only conducted me to this tranquil situation but also given me abundant reason to be contented and thankful. Blessed be His holy name!"Henry Knox: Revolutionary War General & Secretary of War

"First, I think it proper to express my unshaken opinion of the immortality of my soul or mind; and to dedicate and devote the same to the supreme head of the Universe – to that great and tremendous Jehovah, – Who created the universal frame of nature, worlds, and systems in number infinite . . . To this awfully sublime Being do I resign my spirit with unlimited confidence of His mercy and protection."John Langdon: Signer of the Constitution" In the name of God, Amen. I, John Langdon, . . . considering the uncertainty of life and that it is appointed unto all men once to die [Hebrews 9:27], do make, ordain and publish this my last will and testament in manner following, that is to say-First: I commend my soul to the infinite mercies of God in Christ Jesus, the beloved Son of the Father, who died and rose again that He might be the Lord of the dead and of the living . . . professing to believe and hope in the joyful Scripture doctrine of a resurrection to eternal life"

Roger Sherman: Signer of the Declaration of Independence & Constitution"I believe that there is one only living and true God, existing in three persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. . . . that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are a revelation from God. . . . that God did send His own Son to become man, die in the room and stead of sinners, and thus to lay a foundation for the offer of pardon and salvation to all mankind so as all may be saved who are willing to accept the Gospel offer."

Is that enough or do you need more?

And let me guess, you'll say something about Franklin, Washington or Jefferson...for some very stupid reasons people like to claim these three were atheist, when in fact the opposite is true...especially concerning Jefferson, a man who wrote over 70,000 letters in his lifetime, 70+ which called for things such as question everything even the existence of God...people who make the "Atheist" claim base their claimoff of those 70 letters and ignore the other 69,900+.

I hold (without appeal to revelation) that when we take a view of the universe, in all its parts, general or particular, it is impossible for the human mind not to perceive and feel a conviction of design, consummate skill, and indefinite power in every atom of its composition...

...it is impossible I say, for the human mind not to believe that there is in all this design, cause and effect up to an ultimate cause, a fabricator of all things from matter and motion, their preserver and regulator while permitted to exist in their present forms, and their regeneration into new and other forms. We see, too evident proofs of the necessity of a superintending power to maintain the universe in its course and order...

The bold^^^ nothing more than a propagated lie in order to circumvent the rights granted by the constitution. Beyond that it makes no sense. If someone doesn't believe in God, fine, that's their choice, their right but to twist the beliefs of others only to create a false image makes no sense unless one is trying to twist the intent of the original statements, in this case the constitution.

Let's look at what some of the founders said in regards to God and Christ:

Samuel Adams:Known as "The Father of the American Revolution" and signer of the Declaration of Independence

"I . . . recommend my Soul to that Almighty Being who gave it, and my body I commit to the dust, relying upon the merits of Jesus Christ for a pardon of all my sins."

Benjamin Rush: Signer of the Declaration of Independence"My only hope of salvation is in the infinite, transcendent love of God manifested to the world by the death of His Son upon the cross. Nothing but His blood will wash away my sins. I rely exclusively upon it. Come, Lord Jesus! Come quickly!"

John Dickinson: Signer of the Constitution"Rendering thanks to my Creator for my existence and station among His works, for my birth in a country enlightened by the Gospel and enjoying freedom, and for all His other kindnesses, to Him I resign myself, humbly confiding in His goodness and in His mercy through Jesus Christ for the events of eternity."John Hancock: Signer of the Deceleration of Independence" I John Hancock, . . . being advanced in years and being of perfect mind and memory-thanks be given to God-therefore calling to mind the mortality of my body and knowing it is appointed for all men once to die [Hebrews 9:27], do make and ordain this my last will and testament…Principally and first of all, I give and recommend my soul into the hands of God that gave it: and my body I recommend to the earth . . . nothing doubting but at the general resurrection I shall receive the same again by the mercy and power of God"Patrick Henry: Governor of Virginia and Writer of Articles of Confederation"This is all the inheritance I can give to my dear family. The religion of Christ can give them one which will make them rich indeed."

John Jay: First Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court"Unto Him who is the author and giver of all good, I render sincere and humble thanks for His manifold and unmerited blessings, and especially for our redemption and salvation by His beloved son. He has been pleased to bless me with excellent parents, with a virtuous wife, and with worthy children. His protection has companied me through many eventful years, faithfully employed in the service of my country; His providence has not only conducted me to this tranquil situation but also given me abundant reason to be contented and thankful. Blessed be His holy name!"Henry Knox: Revolutionary War General & Secretary of War

"First, I think it proper to express my unshaken opinion of the immortality of my soul or mind; and to dedicate and devote the same to the supreme head of the Universe – to that great and tremendous Jehovah, – Who created the universal frame of nature, worlds, and systems in number infinite . . . To this awfully sublime Being do I resign my spirit with unlimited confidence of His mercy and protection."John Langdon: Signer of the Constitution" In the name of God, Amen. I, John Langdon, . . . considering the uncertainty of life and that it is appointed unto all men once to die [Hebrews 9:27], do make, ordain and publish this my last will and testament in manner following, that is to say-First: I commend my soul to the infinite mercies of God in Christ Jesus, the beloved Son of the Father, who died and rose again that He might be the Lord of the dead and of the living . . . professing to believe and hope in the joyful Scripture doctrine of a resurrection to eternal life"

Roger Sherman: Signer of the Declaration of Independence & Constitution"I believe that there is one only living and true God, existing in three persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. . . . that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are a revelation from God. . . . that God did send His own Son to become man, die in the room and stead of sinners, and thus to lay a foundation for the offer of pardon and salvation to all mankind so as all may be saved who are willing to accept the Gospel offer."

Is that enough or do you need more?

And let me guess, you'll say something about Franklin, Washington or Jefferson...for some very stupid reasons people like to claim these three were atheist, when in fact the opposite is true...especially concerning Jefferson, a man who wrote over 70,000 letters in his lifetime, 70+ which called for things such as question everything even the existence of God...people who make the "Atheist" claim base their claimoff of those 70 letters and ignore the other 69,900+.

ah....when did I say any of them were atheist?

what point are you trying to make?

some of the founder were Christian and certainly some were comfortable in exercising their freedom of speech and their freedom of religion

some of the founder were Christian and certainly some were comfortable in exercising their freedom of speech and their freedom of religion

is that your point?

Your words: "Well many of the founders were Deist and most did not believe in trinity, the divinity of jesus, miracles, etc.. "

Implying obviously most are not Christians, if you don't believe in the trinity, you're not a Christian, if you're a deist, you're not a Christian. I can post quote after quote of almost every single founding father and numerous ones that prove the claim that most were deist and didn't believe in the trinity to be false.

Your words: "Well many of the founders were Deist and most did not believe in trinity, the divinity of jesus, miracles, etc.. "

Implying obviously most are not Christians, if you don't believe in the trinity, you're not a Christian, if you're a deist, you're not a Christian. I can post quote after quote of almost every single founding father and numerous ones that prove the claim that most were deist and didn't believe in the trinity to be false.

You're probably right but I still can't resist posting a few more from George Washington since like Jefferson, for some reason guys like Straw love calling these guys deist:

“What students would learn in American schools above all is the religion of Jesus Christ"

"It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and Bible."

"It is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favors."

“O Most Glorious God, in Jesus Christ, my merciful and loving Father; I acknowledge and confess my guilt in the weak and imperfect performance of the duties of this day. I have called on Thee for pardon and forgiveness of my sins, but so coldly and carelessly that my prayers are become my sin, and they stand in need of pardon.”“ I have sinned against heaven and before Thee in thought, word, and deed. I have contemned Thy majesty and holy laws. I have likewise sinned by omitting what I ought to have done and committing what I ought not. I have rebelled against the light, despising Thy mercies and judgment, and broken my vows and promise. I have neglected the better things. My iniquities are multiplied and my sins are very great. I confess them, O Lord, with shame and sorrow, detestation and loathing and desire to be vile in my own eyes as I have rendered myself vile in Thine. I humbly beseech Thee to be merciful to me in the free pardon of my sins for the sake of Thy dear Son and only Savior Jesus Christ who came to call not the righteous, but sinners to repentance. Thou gavest Thy Son to die for me.”

"Make me to know what is acceptable in Thy sight, and therein to delight, open the eyes of my understanding, and help me thoroughly to examine myself concerning my knowledge, faith, and repentance, increase my faith, and direct me to the true object, Jesus Christ the Way, the Truth, and the Life, ..."

I am not a religious person at all, but believe firmly that our rights come from God almighty, not traitors and communists like obama and those who are power hungry psychos.

I believe I have a right to take whatever steps necessary, including violent revolution, to repeal and repel those that would attempt to take said rights from me.

That is the difference between typical leftists and those on the right. Leftists have a slave mentality to where they want to be led and want to be told what to do by some "benign" dictator who they think has their interests at heart.

Obviously you're too stupid to understand the argument being waged here. Nobody claims that God wrote the constitution or declaration of independence you douchebag. The argument is that some rights are fundamental to all human beings and are mandated by a higher power than a legion of politicians scribbling legislation down on a piece of paper. Freedom of speech, marriage, freedom of religion, etc. etc. are all fundamental rights that the framers felt were so important to the public, that God, rather than the framers themselves was the final authority on such matters. Nobody is claiming that God appeared to Thomas Jefferson and told him and his pals to write another chapter of the Bible.

^proof that you completely missed my point. I didn't mean literally God came down and commanded them or gave them a vision. Perhaps you should look into your lineage before saying anymore about mine?

It's stupid to say God gave you rights at all or that there are even fundamental rights granted by a higher power other than man. Last i checked man wrote the constitution and man wrote it during a period when not all had those 'fundamental rights' supposedly granted by God were not available to all. That would lead one to logically conclude man mandated the rights that we enjoy.

^proof that you completely missed my point. I didn't mean literally God came down and commanded them or gave them a vision. Perhaps you should look into your lineage before saying anymore about mine?

It's stupid to say God gave you rights at all or that there are even fundamental rights granted by a higher power other than man. Last i checked man wrote the constitution and man wrote it during a period when not all had those 'fundamental rights' supposedly granted by God were not available to all. That would lead one to logically conclude man mandated the rights that we enjoy.

this is why you are a mrxist and have a slave mentality along with all your fellow traveling progressives i.e. communists who think everything eminates from man.

According to you fools, man gave you rights, and hence can take them away. This is why you communists on the left have no problem whatsoever infringing upon, usurping, and abrogating everyones' freedom whenever and however you see fit.

So you think it is correct for the government to act unconstitutionally and take away your rights? You think that the citizens should just accept it and keep their mouths shut?

Nope. But violence is a last resort. We have 333 posting that the dems are about to lose the upcoming election yet he still pipes on about violent revolution. Why? It seems democracy is going to take it's natural course.

Nope. But violence is a last resort. We have 333 posting that the dems are about to lose the upcoming election yet he still pipes on about violent revolution. Why? It seems democracy is going to take it's natural course.

No, I said that regardless of elections - whatever - if the government tries to abrogate fundamental rights of the citizens that are guaranteed by the Dec. of Indep., Const, etc, that the citizens have a natural law right to violently overthrow throw the Govt.

Nope. But violence is a last resort. We have 333 posting that the dems are about to lose the upcoming election yet he still pipes on about violent revolution. Why? It seems democracy is going to take it's natural course.

Please do you really think there is a difference between the 2 parties? Its all lip service to keep the people divided so we don't actually flush the toilet that is DC. Natural course is the reason we are in the position we are in, same bunch of assholes keep getting re-elected only the POTUS changes.

Typical morons on getbig............the arguments weren't about whether or not the founding fathers believed in god............or a god..........they didn't consider themselves Christians. Do most of you even understand that difference? Obviously not. For fuck's sake why the fuck do you idiots even care? It's not like you all are Christians yourselves. I mean how many of you even go to church on Sunday? ::)

You're probably right but I still can't resist posting a few more from George Washington since like Jefferson, for some reason guys like Straw love calling these guys deist:

“What students would learn in American schools above all is the religion of Jesus Christ"

"It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and Bible."

"It is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favors."

“O Most Glorious God, in Jesus Christ, my merciful and loving Father; I acknowledge and confess my guilt in the weak and imperfect performance of the duties of this day. I have called on Thee for pardon and forgiveness of my sins, but so coldly and carelessly that my prayers are become my sin, and they stand in need of pardon.”“ I have sinned against heaven and before Thee in thought, word, and deed. I have contemned Thy majesty and holy laws. I have likewise sinned by omitting what I ought to have done and committing what I ought not. I have rebelled against the light, despising Thy mercies and judgment, and broken my vows and promise. I have neglected the better things. My iniquities are multiplied and my sins are very great. I confess them, O Lord, with shame and sorrow, detestation and loathing and desire to be vile in my own eyes as I have rendered myself vile in Thine. I humbly beseech Thee to be merciful to me in the free pardon of my sins for the sake of Thy dear Son and only Savior Jesus Christ who came to call not the righteous, but sinners to repentance. Thou gavest Thy Son to die for me.”

"Make me to know what is acceptable in Thy sight, and therein to delight, open the eyes of my understanding, and help me thoroughly to examine myself concerning my knowledge, faith, and repentance, increase my faith, and direct me to the true object, Jesus Christ the Way, the Truth, and the Life, ..."

So what is your fucking point? Let's put it on record here and now. Are you saying most of the founding fathers were in fact Christians? LOL

LOL that isnt a belief...the belief would be that in general conservatives are for doing anything and everything that might need to be done to protect the US and its ppl...liberals in general are not...certain interrogation techniques would be the example of that...

and I dont know I havent polled or seen a poll but I would be in favor of doing anything and everything possible to protect the US and its ppl...how about you?

What would your views on torture have been if Clinton had introduced "waterboarding" during the 1990s?

You know you would be going nuts over how wrong it is.

Maybe we should start suicide bombing.

It's funny that people call torture an "interrogation technique". Would child abuse be a "parenting technique"?

What would your views on torture have been if Clinton had introduced "waterboarding" during the 1990s?

You know you would be going nuts over how wrong it is.

Maybe we should start suicide bombing.

It's funny that people call torture an "interrogation technique". Would child abuse be a "parenting technique"?

NOT ONE DAMN BIT OF DIFFERENCE... 8)

I dont care who introduced it, you really think we werent doing it under clinton? ::)

fact is there are ppl out there who are trying to hurt us, I am for doing ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING to prevent that from happening that doesnt infringe on our rights...screw their percieved rights they are against us they have no rights...

let me know when a parent targets a building full of kids b/c they are against children and we will talk... ::) ::) ::)

I dont care who introduced it, you really think we werent doing it under clinton? ::)

fact is there are ppl out there who are trying to hurt us, I am for doing ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING to prevent that from happening that doesnt infringe on our rights...screw their percieved rights they are against us they have no rights...

let me know when a parent targets a building full of kids b/c they are against children and we will talk... ::) ::) ::)

I would hate a country and a government that subverts democracy, topples democratically elected governments, and steals and exploits my country's resources. Iran is a perfect example. Who the fuck do you think overthrew Mossadegh in the 1950s. Then who the fuck do you think overthrew the Shah in the 1970s and installed Ayatollah??????? You're just a dumb fuck who knows nothinng about history.

I would hate a country and a government that subverts democracy, topples democratically elected governments, and steals and exploits my country's resources. Iran is a perfect example. Who the fuck do you think overthrew Mossadegh in the 1950s. Then who the fuck do you think overthrew the Shah in the 1970s and installed Ayatollah??????? You're just a dumb fuck who knows nothinng about history.

where did I say anything about interferring in other countries goings on?

I think we should leave them alone but if they feel they dont want to leave us alone then we should do everything in our power to stop them from hurting us. Saying that we have a moral high ground that wont let us do certain things is bull shit to me you can keep that moral high ground I think Ill keep my life and peace of mind thanks.

Typical morons on getbig............the arguments weren't about whether or not the founding fathers believed in god............or a god..........they didn't consider themselves Christians. Do most of you even understand that difference? Obviously not. For fuck's sake why the fuck do you idiots even care? It's not like you all are Christians yourselves. I mean how many of you even go to church on Sunday? ::)

"I am a Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus Christ." Thomas Jefferson

"The reason that Christianity is the best friend of government is because Christianity is the only religion that changes the heart."Thomas Jefferson

"Christianity is part of the common law" James Wilson

"It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible." George Washington

"To the distinguished character of patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian" George Washington

"The general principles on which the Fathers achieved independence, were . . . the general principles of Christianity." John Adams

"First of all, I ... rely upon the merits of Jesus Christ for a pardon of all my sins." Samuel Adams

"I . . . recommend my Soul to that Almighty Being who gave it, and my body I commit to the dust, relying upon the merits of Jesus Christ for a pardon of all my sins." Samuel Adams

"My only hope of salvation is in the infinite, transcendent love of God manifested to the world by the death of His Son upon the cross. Nothing but His blood will wash away my sins. I rely exclusively upon it. Come, Lord Jesus! Come quickly!" Benjamin Rush

"Rendering thanks to my Creator for my existence and station among His works, for my birth in a country enlightened by the Gospel and enjoying freedom, and for all His other kindnesses, to Him I resign myself, humbly confiding in His goodness and in His mercy through Jesus Christ for the events of eternity. John Dickinson

"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians, not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ! For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here." Patrick Henry

" In the name of God, Amen. I, John Langdon, . . . considering the uncertainty of life and that it is appointed unto all men once to die [Hebrews 9:27], do make, ordain and publish this my last will and testament in manner following, that is to say-First: I commend my soul to the infinite mercies of God in Christ Jesus, the beloved Son of the Father, who died and rose again that He might be the Lord of the dead and of the living . . . professing to believe and hope in the joyful Scripture doctrine of a resurrection to eternal life" John Langdon

"I believe that there is one only living and true God, existing in three persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. . . . that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are a revelation from God. . . . that God did send His own Son to become man, die in the room and stead of sinners, and thus to lay a foundation for the offer of pardon and salvation to all mankind so as all may be saved who are willing to accept the Gospel offer." &guy Sherman

“In circumstances as dark as these, it becomes us, as Men and Christians, to reflect that whilst every prudent measure should be taken to ward off the impending judgments, …at the same time all confidence must be withheld from the means we use; and reposed only on that God rules in the armies of Heaven, and without His whole blessing, the best human counsels are but foolishness" John Hancock

"I am a Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus Christ." Thomas Jefferson

"The reason that Christianity is the best friend of government is because Christianity is the only religion that changes the heart."Thomas Jefferson

"Christianity is part of the common law" James Wilson

"It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible." George Washington

"To the distinguished character of patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian" George Washington

"The general principles on which the Fathers achieved independence, were . . . the general principles of Christianity." John Adams

"First of all, I ... rely upon the merits of Jesus Christ for a pardon of all my sins." Samuel Adams

"I . . . recommend my Soul to that Almighty Being who gave it, and my body I commit to the dust, relying upon the merits of Jesus Christ for a pardon of all my sins." Samuel Adams

"My only hope of salvation is in the infinite, transcendent love of God manifested to the world by the death of His Son upon the cross. Nothing but His blood will wash away my sins. I rely exclusively upon it. Come, Lord Jesus! Come quickly!" Benjamin Rush

"Rendering thanks to my Creator for my existence and station among His works, for my birth in a country enlightened by the Gospel and enjoying freedom, and for all His other kindnesses, to Him I resign myself, humbly confiding in His goodness and in His mercy through Jesus Christ for the events of eternity. John Dickinson

"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians, not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ! For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here." Patrick Henry

" In the name of God, Amen. I, John Langdon, . . . considering the uncertainty of life and that it is appointed unto all men once to die [Hebrews 9:27], do make, ordain and publish this my last will and testament in manner following, that is to say-First: I commend my soul to the infinite mercies of God in Christ Jesus, the beloved Son of the Father, who died and rose again that He might be the Lord of the dead and of the living . . . professing to believe and hope in the joyful Scripture doctrine of a resurrection to eternal life" John Langdon

"I believe that there is one only living and true God, existing in three persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. . . . that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are a revelation from God. . . . that God did send His own Son to become man, die in the room and stead of sinners, and thus to lay a foundation for the offer of pardon and salvation to all mankind so as all may be saved who are willing to accept the Gospel offer." &guy Sherman

“In circumstances as dark as these, it becomes us, as Men and Christians, to reflect that whilst every prudent measure should be taken to ward off the impending judgments, …at the same time all confidence must be withheld from the means we use; and reposed only on that God rules in the armies of Heaven, and without His whole blessing, the best human counsels are but foolishness" John Hancock

I think those guys said a lot of things. They were in a sense "politicians" :)

Quote

"It has been fifty and sixty years since I read the Apocalypse, and then I considered it merely the ravings of a maniac."Jefferson

"I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition (Christianity) one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology."Jefferson

"We discover in the gospels a groundwork of vulgar ignorance, of things impossible, of superstition, fanaticism and fabrication ."Jefferson

"I looked around for God's judgments, but saw no signs of them."Franklin

"In the affairs of the world, men are saved, not by faith, but by the lack of it."Franklin

"What is it the New Testament teaches us? To believe that the Almighty committed debauchery with a woman engaged to be married; and the belief of this debauchery is called faith."Paine

"I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish Church, by the Roman Church, by the Greek Church, by the Turkish Church, by the Protestant Church, nor by any Church that I know of. My own mind is my own Church. Each of those churches accuse the other of unbelief; and for my own part, I disbelieve them all."Paine

"This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it."Adams

". . . Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind."Adams

I don't believe they we athiests, but i do believe they were practical when it came to religion.

So what is your fucking point? Let's put it on record here and now. Are you saying most of the founding fathers were in fact Christians? LOL

Yes I am. When you read that prayer of GW how could you think anything else? The quotes I listed a couple pages back, you know, the 20+ direct quotes, not misconstrued, but direct quotes from founders that all speak of their love for Christ, divine providence, etc...if you wouldn't call them Christians what would you call them?

OK, once again....

Benjamin Franklin: Author of Dec. IND and just about ever U.S.doc in history of the founding:

"Here is my creed. I believe in one God, the creator of the universe. That he governs it by his providence. That he ought to be worshipped. That the most acceptable service we render to him is in doing good to his other children. That the soul of man is immortal and will be treated with justice in another life respecting its conduct in this.

Thomas Jefferson: President of the United States, author of Dec. IND & Const:

"God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever; That a revolution of the wheel of fortune, a change of situation, is among possible events; that it may become probable by Supernatural influence! The Almighty has no attribute which can take side with us in that event"

George Washington: Everyone knows who this one is

“What students would learn in American schools above all is the religion of Jesus Christ"

"It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and Bible."

"It is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favors."

Samuel Adams:Known as "The Father of the American Revolution" and signer of the Declaration of Independence

"I . . . recommend my Soul to that Almighty Being who gave it, and my body I commit to the dust, relying upon the merits of Jesus Christ for a pardon of all my sins."

Benjamin Rush: Signer of the Declaration of Independence"My only hope of salvation is in the infinite, transcendent love of God manifested to the world by the death of His Son upon the cross. Nothing but His blood will wash away my sins. I rely exclusively upon it. Come, Lord Jesus! Come quickly!"

John Dickinson: Signer of the Constitution"Rendering thanks to my Creator for my existence and station among His works, for my birth in a country enlightened by the Gospel and enjoying freedom, and for all His other kindnesses, to Him I resign myself, humbly confiding in His goodness and in His mercy through Jesus Christ for the events of eternity."

John Hancock: Signer of the Deceleration of Independence" I John Hancock, . . . being advanced in years and being of perfect mind and memory-thanks be given to God-therefore calling to mind the mortality of my body and knowing it is appointed for all men once to die [Hebrews 9:27], do make and ordain this my last will and testament…Principally and first of all, I give and recommend my soul into the hands of God that gave it: and my body I recommend to the earth . . . nothing doubting but at the general resurrection I shall receive the same again by the mercy and power of God"

Patrick Henry: Governor of Virginia and Writer of Articles of Confederation"This is all the inheritance I can give to my dear family. The religion of Christ can give them one which will make them rich indeed."

John Jay: First Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court"Unto Him who is the author and giver of all good, I render sincere and humble thanks for His manifold and unmerited blessings, and especially for our redemption and salvation by His beloved son. He has been pleased to bless me with excellent parents, with a virtuous wife, and with worthy children. His protection has companied me through many eventful years, faithfully employed in the service of my country; His providence has not only conducted me to this tranquil situation but also given me abundant reason to be contented and thankful. Blessed be His holy name!"

Henry Knox: Revolutionary War General & Secretary of War

"First, I think it proper to express my unshaken opinion of the immortality of my soul or mind; and to dedicate and devote the same to the supreme head of the Universe – to that great and tremendous Jehovah, – Who created the universal frame of nature, worlds, and systems in number infinite . . . To this awfully sublime Being do I resign my spirit with unlimited confidence of His mercy and protection."

John Langdon: Signer of the Constitution" In the name of God, Amen. I, John Langdon, . . . considering the uncertainty of life and that it is appointed unto all men once to die [Hebrews 9:27], do make, ordain and publish this my last will and testament in manner following, that is to say-First: I commend my soul to the infinite mercies of God in Christ Jesus, the beloved Son of the Father, who died and rose again that He might be the Lord of the dead and of the living . . . professing to believe and hope in the joyful Scripture doctrine of a resurrection to eternal life"

Roger Sherman: Signer of the Declaration of Independence & Constitution"I believe that there is one only living and true God, existing in three persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. . . . that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are a revelation from God. . . . that God did send His own Son to become man, die in the room and stead of sinners, and thus to lay a foundation for the offer of pardon and salvation to all mankind so as all may be saved who are willing to accept the Gospel offer."

Prayer of George Washington:

“O Most Glorious God, in Jesus Christ, my merciful and loving Father; I acknowledge and confess my guilt in the weak and imperfect performance of the duties of this day. I have called on Thee for pardon and forgiveness of my sins, but so coldly and carelessly that my prayers are become my sin, and they stand in need of pardon.”“ I have sinned against heaven and before Thee in thought, word, and deed. I have contemned Thy majesty and holy laws. I have likewise sinned by omitting what I ought to have done and committing what I ought not. I have rebelled against the light, despising Thy mercies and judgment, and broken my vows and promise. I have neglected the better things. My iniquities are multiplied and my sins are very great. I confess them, O Lord, with shame and sorrow, detestation and loathing and desire to be vile in my own eyes as I have rendered myself vile in Thine. I humbly beseech Thee to be merciful to me in the free pardon of my sins for the sake of Thy dear Son and only Savior Jesus Christ who came to call not the righteous, but sinners to repentance. Thou gavest Thy Son to die for me.”

"Make me to know what is acceptable in Thy sight, and therein to delight, open the eyes of my understanding, and help me thoroughly to examine myself concerning my knowledge, faith, and repentance, increase my faith, and direct me to the true object, Jesus Christ the Way, the Truth, and the Life, ..."

"I am a Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus Christ." Thomas Jefferson

"The reason that Christianity is the best friend of government is because Christianity is the only religion that changes the heart."Thomas Jefferson

"Christianity is part of the common law" James Wilson

"It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible." George Washington

"To the distinguished character of patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian" George Washington

"The general principles on which the Fathers achieved independence, were . . . the general principles of Christianity." John Adams

"First of all, I ... rely upon the merits of Jesus Christ for a pardon of all my sins." Samuel Adams

"I . . . recommend my Soul to that Almighty Being who gave it, and my body I commit to the dust, relying upon the merits of Jesus Christ for a pardon of all my sins." Samuel Adams

"My only hope of salvation is in the infinite, transcendent love of God manifested to the world by the death of His Son upon the cross. Nothing but His blood will wash away my sins. I rely exclusively upon it. Come, Lord Jesus! Come quickly!" Benjamin Rush

"Rendering thanks to my Creator for my existence and station among His works, for my birth in a country enlightened by the Gospel and enjoying freedom, and for all His other kindnesses, to Him I resign myself, humbly confiding in His goodness and in His mercy through Jesus Christ for the events of eternity. John Dickinson

"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians, not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ! For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here." Patrick Henry

" In the name of God, Amen. I, John Langdon, . . . considering the uncertainty of life and that it is appointed unto all men once to die [Hebrews 9:27], do make, ordain and publish this my last will and testament in manner following, that is to say-First: I commend my soul to the infinite mercies of God in Christ Jesus, the beloved Son of the Father, who died and rose again that He might be the Lord of the dead and of the living . . . professing to believe and hope in the joyful Scripture doctrine of a resurrection to eternal life" John Langdon

"I believe that there is one only living and true God, existing in three persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. . . . that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are a revelation from God. . . . that God did send His own Son to become man, die in the room and stead of sinners, and thus to lay a foundation for the offer of pardon and salvation to all mankind so as all may be saved who are willing to accept the Gospel offer." &guy Sherman

“In circumstances as dark as these, it becomes us, as Men and Christians, to reflect that whilst every prudent measure should be taken to ward off the impending judgments, …at the same time all confidence must be withheld from the means we use; and reposed only on that God rules in the armies of Heaven, and without His whole blessing, the best human counsels are but foolishness" John Hancock

well this thread was not about Jefferson or Christianity but I'll be glad to play dueling quotes.

I haven't bothered to check if the quotes above are even real but I'll assume they are.

One has to wonder why a politician might pretend to be a religious person or even a Christian.

We never see that today do we?

No one ever suspects that politicians might be trying to appeal to a constintuency?

That never happens does it?

We know Jefferson liked the "philosophy" of Jesus because he went so far as to write his own version of the Bible. He just removed all the supernatural mumbo jumbo and the part about Jesus being a God.

There is no doubt that some of the founders considered themselves Christian but many others shared the same view that many people today do. They might call themselves Christian but they pick and choose the stuff they like and just ignore the stuff they don't.

Let's start with Jefferson:

btw - how cool would it be if any modern politician had the balls to talk as Jefferson did (and as many of his contemporaries did) on the subject of religion

Thomas Jefferson

"I have examined all the known superstitions of the world and I do not findin our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. Theyare all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men,women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have beenburnt, tortured, fined, and imprisoned. What has been the effect of thiscoercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; tosupport roguery and error all over the earth."

Thomas Jefferson:

"Christianity...(has become) the most perverted system that ever shone onman...Rogueries, absurdities and untruths were perpetrated upon theteachings of Jesus by a large band of dupes and imposters led by Paul, thefirst great corruptor of the teachings of Jesus."

Thomas Jefferson (this one might be my favorite)

"The clergy converted the simple teachings of Jesus into an engine forenslaving mankind and adulturated by artificial constructions into acontrivance to filch wealth and power to themselves...these clergy in fact,constitute the real Anti-Christ."

You know Straw those quotes are a bit suspicious for one reason and I'll explain.

I think I mentioned this in another thread but I can't remember for certain; Jefferson, over his lifetime, wrote approximately 70,000+ documents and letters. Of those 70,000+, 70 of them, give or take a few, I can't remember the exact number, but some 70 of them have things in them that might make one question what Jefferson's beliefs were. In those 70 docs/letters, he questions God, questions Christianity, etc. But in the 69,930 other letters it is quite the opposite.

So what now? Do we ignore the 69,930 letters and focus only on the 70 or do we consider the whole package?

Also, when I was in school, the way Jefferson was portrayed to me was a little strange, something never added up. After graduation I decided I'd do my own study on Jefferson. At one time he was my least favorite founding father but he may very well be my favorite now...either him or GW but the point is, of those 70,000 documents and letters Jefferson wrote, I've read about half, or close to it, hopefully in another ten yrs I'll have read all of them but who knows, some are hard to find. Point being, the quotes you posted, the language, they way he's talking, not only are those quotes very much out of context, some of the wording is downright fake...I'm 100% positive about that. I wouldn't make that claim if you posted stuff from other founders with certainty except when it comes to Hamilton, Jefferson and Washington, on those three I'm positive about.

I can post other quotes from "founders' and there contemporaries but there is plenty of supporting evidence about Jefferson just from comments from other people about him in his own time or slightly after his time.

One example would be the opposition by religous leaders in his time who fought to prevent his election on the grounds that he was an infidel and did not believe in divine revelation

the following is a cut and paste job but it's faster than paraphrasing:

The irony of this situation is that the Christian leaders of Jefferson's time knew where he stood on "biblical principles," and they fought desperately, but unsuccessfully, to prevent his election to the presidency. Saul K. Padover's biography related the bitterness of the opposition that the clergy mounted against Jefferson in the campaign of 1800

Quote

The religious issue was dragged out, and stirred up flames of hatred and intolerance. Clergymen, mobilizing their heaviest artillery of thunder and brimstone, threatened Christians with all manner of dire consequences if they should vote for the "in fidel" from Virginia. This was particularly true in New England, where the clergy stood like Gibraltar against Jefferson (Jefferson A Great American's Life and Ideas, Mentor Books, 1964, p.116).

this one is kind of reminscint of some of the modern day right wing arguments against Obama and to some extent even Kerry

Quote

William Linn, a Dutch Reformed minister in New York City, made perhaps the most violent of all attacks on Jefferson's character, all of it based on religious matters. In a pamphlet entitled Serious Considerations on the Election of a President, Linn "accused Jefferson of the heinous crimes of not believing in divine revelation and of a design to destroy religion and `introduce immorality'" (Padover, p. 116). He referred to Jefferson as a "true infidel" and insisted that "(a)n infidel like Jefferson could not, should not, be elected" (Padover, p. 117). He concluded the pamphlet with this appeal for "Christians to defeat the `infidel' from Virginia"

After Jefferson became president, he did not compromise his beliefs. As president, he refused to issue Thanksgiving proclamations, a fact that Justice Souter referred to in his concurring opinion with the majority in Lee vs. Weisman, the recent supreme-court decision that ruled prayers at graduation ceremonies unconstitutional.

Early in his first presidential term, Jefferson declared his firm belief in the separation of church and state in a letter to the Danbury (Connecticut) Baptists "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should `make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and state."

Before sending the letter to Danbury, Jefferson asked his attorney general, Levi Lincoln, to review it. Jefferson told Lincoln that he considered the letter a means of "sowing useful truths and principles among the people, which might germinate and become rooted among their political tenets" (quoted by Rob Boston in "Myths and Mischief," Church and State, March 1992). If this was indeed Jefferson's wish, he certainly succeeded. Twice, in Reynolds vs. the United States (1879) and Everson vs. Board of Education (1947), the Supreme Court cited Jefferson's letter as "an authoritative declaration of the scope of the [First] Amendment" and agreed that the intention of the First Amendment was "to erect `a wall of separation between church and state.'"

Here is some more historical third party evidence on the beliefs or lack thereof of the founders:

The Reverend Bird Wilson, an Episcopal minister in Albany, New York, preached a sermon in October 1831 in which he stated that "among all our presidents from Washington downward, not one was a professor of religion, at least not of more than Unitarianism" (Paul F. Boller, George Washington & Religion, pp. 14-15). He went on to describe Washington as a "great and good man" but "not a professor of religion." Wilson said that he was "really a typical eighteenth century Deist, not a Christian, in his religious outlook" (Ibid.). Wilson wasn't just speaking about matters that he had not researched, because he had carefully investigated his subject before he preached this sermon. Among others, Wilson had inquired of the Reverend Abercrombie [identified earlier as the rector of the church Washington had attended] concerning Washing ton's religious views. Abercrombie's response was brief and to the point "Sir, Washington was a Deist" (Remsberg, p. 110). Those, then, who were best positioned to know Washington's private religious beliefs did not consider him a Christian, and the Reverend Abercrombie, who knew him personally and pastored the church he attended with his wife flatly said that Washington was a Deist.

"The Reverend Bird Wilson, who was just a few years removed from being a contemporary of the so-called founding fathers, said further in the above-mentioned sermon that the founders of our nation were nearly all Infidels, and that of the presidents who had thus far been elected [George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, John Quincy Adams, and Andrew Jackson] _not a one had professed a belief in Christianity" (Remsberg, p. 120, emphasis added).

"The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend all to the happiness of man.

The practice of morality being necessary for the well being of society, He [God] has taken care to impress its precepts so indelibly on our hearts that they shall not be effaced by the subtleties of our brain. We all agree in the obligation of the moral principles of Jesus and nowhere will they be found delivered in greater purity than in His discourses.

I am a Christian in the only sense in which He wished anyone to be: sincerely attached to His doctrines in preference to all others.

I am a real Christian – that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus Christ"

"The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend all to the happiness of man.

The practice of morality being necessary for the well being of society, He [God] has taken care to impress its precepts so indelibly on our hearts that they shall not be effaced by the subtleties of our brain. We all agree in the obligation of the moral principles of Jesus and nowhere will they be found delivered in greater purity than in His discourses.

I am a Christian in the only sense in which He wished anyone to be: sincerely attached to His doctrines in preference to all others.

I am a real Christian – that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus Christ"

yep - I already mentioned that Jefferson wrote his own version of the bible highlighting the moral philosphy of Jesus and taking out all references to the trinity, the divinity of Jesus, miracles, and the resurection.

yep - I already mentioned that Jefferson wrote his own version of the bible highlighting the moral philosphy of Jesus and taking out all references to the trinity, the divinity of Jesus, miracles, and the resurection.

that was his version of being a "real" christian.

If I posted a picture of the sky and said "look Strawman, the sky is blue" would you then say, "No it's not, it's green and it's not the sky, it's grass." Then I would say, "Look Strawman, there's an airplane in the picture and a bird, see those white things, they're clouds." Would you then say, "This is not a picture we're looking at, it's a holographic image perceived by our own brains due to the extensive and sophisticated wire networking fused within us by the RoboToid slaves from the planet Omicron Persei 8."

Maybe I'm a little off but I'd say the conversation would be pretty close to that.

I think it'll take a lot more than good luck. If I had Bill & Ted's phone booth time machine and brought Jefferson back to speak with strawman, I'm pretty sure he'd argue to his face and try to tell him what he believed because some random third party told him so. Party on, lol!

If I posted a picture of the sky and said "look Strawman, the sky is blue" would you then say, "No it's not, it's green and it's not the sky, it's grass." Then I would say, "Look Strawman, there's an airplane in the picture and a bird, see those white things, they're clouds." Would you then say, "This is not a picture we're looking at, it's a holographic image perceived by our own brains due to the extensive and sophisticated wire networking fused within us by the RoboToid slaves from the planet Omicron Persei 8."

Maybe I'm a little off but I'd say the conversation would be pretty close to that.

the sky actually isn't blue

what's your point

If you think Jefferson was a christian then you're right as long as your definition of christian is someone who doesn't believe in the divinity of jesus, doesn't believe in the resurection, doesn't believe in the miracles, the virgin birth, the trinity etc....

Our forefathers could have never imagined our government growing so large, cumbersome, and intrusive into the lives of citizens. A time will come when we're all crushed under its weight.

Exactly. If you actually understand what Washington is saying, he wants to see a "liberal" country that ISN'T intrusive into the lives of people by RESTRICTING freedom. He wants a country that protects its citizens by staying OUT of their lives and not refusing rights and privileges because of race, creed, sex, etc.

That is NOT modern liberalism. He is NOT hoping for a country that wants to force its way into the daily life of every citizen. He wants the country to be so "liberal" that it allows EVERYONE the freedom to prosper without unjust prejudice.

Way to see the word "liberal" and not understand the context of its use.

The new episodes are pretty good, I've seen a couple of them. And you're right, no robotoid slaves on Omicron Persei 8...I was more or less just typing out of my ass on that one, lol!

BTW, Major LOL@ Morbo and Ler comment!!!!

Honestly, I am severely dissipointed in the new season. I would say that there were 2 or 3 good episodes, with the rest being average or completely awful. All the movies were pretty good except Benders game which completely sucked ass. I hope they get back to form next season and don't turn the show into another Simpsons- mostly watchable, but not really funny.

Honestly, I am severely dissipointed in the new season. I would say that there were 2 or 3 good episodes, with the rest being average or completely awful. All the movies were pretty good except Benders game which completely sucked ass. I hope they get back to form next season and don't turn the show into another Simpsons- mostly watchable, but not really funny.

From the episodes I've seen I agree, it's not as good but there's still some funny stuff. And I agree, I hope it doesn't take the Simpsons path, that show has really flat lined.

Good gawd. You cant box in a definition like that anymore than you can describe a conservative. Every single person may agree with some of the points of a party but disagree with others. You guys are mainly arguing that of a "social liberal" vs "classic liberal" And both parties fall VERY short of what they are supposed to stand for.

BTW. Straw has owned all of you quite well. Its like your all racing in 3rd gear and he hit 6th and is gone beyond your apprehension.

Do you pledge to serve obama? Its a yes or no answer. Could you please answer yes or no and not try a second rate attempt to redirect. D you pledge to be a servant to barack hussein obama? Yes or no answer please.

Good gawd. You cant box in a definition like that anymore than you can describe a conservative. Every single person may agree with some of the points of a party but disagree with others. You guys are mainly arguing that of a "social liberal" vs "classic liberal" And both parties fall VERY short of what they are supposed to stand for.

BTW. Straw has owned all of you quite well. Its like your all racing in 3rd gear and he hit 6th and is gone beyond your apprehension.